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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  April 2012

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: RES: belatedly new

From:

Honor Harger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Honor Harger <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:38:43 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

Hey,

Michael, nice to hear from you!

Thanks for pointing to Dan Phiffer's post 
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1204&L=new-media-curating&O=D&P=8039> 
(which for some reason I didn't get in my in tray when he sent it). 
It is really interesting.
It's great to hear from someone who was actually at the New Aesthetic 
panel at SXSW.  I'm glad he linked to Dan Catt's article 
(http://is.gd/dancatt) in his post, which is, IMHO, a fascinating 
analysis of one specific part of the New Aesthetic, and a good 
example of what's he's describing in the quotation you cite to below.

I think battering the New Aesthetic with the traditional "but it's 
not new!" truncheon is missing the point. A set of observations about 
how technology is changing our lived world now, will be necessarily - 
and perhaps even fundamentally -  be different to the set of 
observations that were made 5, 10, 20 years ago.  That's not to 
devalue to the observations that were made it the past, or to eschew 
the essential need to tether what we see and say now, to what was 
seen and said before.  But like Dan Phiffer, I am a bit mystified 
(and miffed) by the "we've seen it all before" line of critique.

The technologised society that we're existing within today in April 
2012, is not the same technologised society we were talking about at 
InfoWar in Ars Electronica in 1998 (or any other moment we might use 
an an example).  Just because there may have been some observations, 
practices, lines of enquiry, theses in our community which were 
profound and now seem even prophetic, doesn't somehow mean the 
conversation has been had verbatim before.

The technologised space that Alexis Madrigal describes in this 
article here 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-jig-is-up-time-to-get-past-facebook-and-invent-a-new-future/256046/>, 
just published in The Atlantic a few moments ago, is a materially 
different space to the one cogently, powerfully, and poetically 
explored and articulated by the artists, aestheticians, and 
(dare-I-say), proto-critical engineers that have come before. The 
"particular situation" that Phiffer refers to in his post, and you 
quote below, is one in which society has now truly become saturated 
with digital technology in ways we all expected and predicted, some 
years ago, but we couldn't possibly have predicted or described all 
of the effects of this.  What I find interesting about, not just the 
New Aesthetic, but the work of a new generation of creatives in this 
space, is that they are making fundamentally important observations 
of how this technology is transforming society *now*.  Their voice is 
needed and is valid, and sneering at them for being ahistorical 
isn't, in my view, particularly helpful.

When I read Bruce's article, what struck me as one of the most 
important lines, one I go back to again and again is this one:

"Modern creatives who want to work in good faith will have to fully 
disengage from the older generation's mythos of phantoms, and 
masterfully grasp the genuine nature of their own creative tools and 
platforms. Otherwise, they will lack comprehension and command of 
what they are doing and creating, and they will remain reduced to the 
freak-show position of most twentieth century tech art. That's what 
is at stake."

This is clearly contentious, and I'm sure many here will disagree 
with this call-to-action as a cultural strategy (and I can't comment 
on whether this has anything particularly to bring to bear to/on The 
New Aesthetic).  But I am personally excited and intrigued by the 
idea that a different group of people, some from different fields, 
some from different generations, are earnestly exploring topics which 
are close to our heart with a different sensibility.

I think that's something to value, something to watch closely, 
something to debate, rather rather dismiss.
And Michael, I think you're right: "The best work about this has not 
yet been made."

best,

Honor



Date:         Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:59:44 -0400
Reply-To:     Michael Connor <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org" 
<[log in to unmask]>
From:         Michael Connor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] RES: belatedly new

Honor, thanks for making that point. I feel like I'm following this
debate through the wrong end of a telescope, but it seems like the
central point for discussion that Dan offered a while back was a bit
lost in the kerfuffle over branding and self-promotion:

"The point is that we are in this particular situation now, with its
drones and GPS phones and face matching algorithms. The New Aesthetic
label might be a useful shorthand for discussing those conditions. I
could see taking the stance that our conditions are not in fact
changing so drastically, or that this particular shorthand is flawed.
I'm just glad to see this stuff being considered outside explicitly
art/academic/activist circles."

Although the circumstances that Dan describes do have long histories
or genealogies, they remain poorly understood (despite the efforts of
the giants of the past, Cage or Richter or the Situationists or the
Vasulkas). I love to see new work that grapples with these
developments, and the questions they raise about human subjectivity,
behavior, agency and perception, in insightful and revealing ways.

The best work about this has not yet been made.

>Michael
>
>On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  On 04/18/2012 05:17 PM, Saul Albert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  New Aesthetics is to The Internet of Things as net.art was to New Media?
>>
>>
>>  You win the Internet (of Things). But I'd point out that TNA is not in
>>  itself art. TNA is, as its name states, an aesthetic. The Tumblr blog is a
>>  presentation of examples of that aesthetic. This presentation is essayistic,
>>  but it would be a mistake to regard it as a failure to write an essay.
>>
>>  - Rob.


-- 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

honor harger

present location: brighton, .uk

email: [log in to unmask]
sms: +44 7765834272

-> w e b
bio: http://about.me/honor

-> b l o g
particle decelerator: http://decelerator.blogspot.com/

- > b l a g
twitter: http://twitter.com/honorharger

-> l i s t e n
radio astronomy: http://www.radio-astronomy.net

-> w o r k
director of lighthouse: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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