Well, it didn't take long — I was actually thinking about this early this
morning (amazing what the brains turns to at 3:00 AM), but I wasn't really
too surprised to see this:
https://dhs.stanford.edu/the-digital-humanities-as/the-digital-humanities-as-a-part-of-the-new-aesthetic/
Why does it NOT surprise me to see the appropriation of NEw Aesthetics by
the digital humanities?
Best,
Dennis
~~
If your first move is brilliant, you’re in trouble. You don’t really know
how to follow it; you’re frightened of ruining it. So, to make a mess is a
good beginning. — Brian Eno
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 13:14, Dan Phiffer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
> > Was anyone on the list at the South by Southwest panel a month ago now?
>
> I was at the panel and I thought it was great, easily my favorite of the
> conference. It was fun and performative, a bit challenging (by SXSW
> standards). I could see that the cleverness and slickness might have been
> distracting, but I think there are solid ideas behind it. The notes I've
> seen posted by the panelists seem to follow pretty closely with what they
> actually said. There was no Q&A, but I'm glad to see it being discussed as
> much as it has been.
>
>
> > I am intrigued by Bruce Sterling's article
> >
> http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/04/an-essay-on-the-new-aesthetic/#comments
>
> Yeah, this is the best thing I've read, and probably has a lot to do with
> the discussion carrying on like it has. I've found some of these to be
> useful as well:
>
> http://www.riglondon.com/blog/2011/05/06/the-new-aesthetic/
>
> http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/in-response-to-bruce-sterlings-essay-on-the-new-aesthetic
>
> http://revdancatt.com/2012/04/07/why-the-new-aesthetic-isnt-about-8bit-retro-the-robot-readable-world-computer-vision-and-pirates/
>
> Two bits that have stuck with me from Sterling's essay, as someone who
> thinks about the "'new media art' is its own thing" vs "'new media art' is
> just part of contemporary art" debate:
>
> "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."
>
> "An intellectually honest New Aesthetic would have wider horizons than a
> glitch-hunt. It would manifest a friendlier attitude toward non-artistic
> creatives and their works. It would be kinder with non-artists, at ease
> with them, helpful to them, inclusive of them, of service to them. It’s not
> enough to adopt a grabbier attitude toward the inanimate products of their
> engineering."
>
>
> > I recognise that discussion on 'the new aesthetic' also raises some
> interesting questions about how the 'new media art' world and the
> 'interaction design world' get along, as it would seem they are further
> apart than we first thought. Perhaps the exhibitions of MoMA could make an
> interesting case study here in that regard.
>
> A lot of my New Media Art friends seem to want to avoid this conversation,
> or have adopted a "tell me why this matters" stance. I guess that's
> understandable, it's easy to look at the Tumblr blog and not see much
> substance. Plus it's a broader cultural thing, it doesn't exclude fashion
> and advertising, it is probably generationally divisive. It seems to
> highlight my own provincial in-groups.
>
> Last night at the Q&A of Aram Barthol's book launch he seemed either
> unfamiliar with the New Aesthetic or hadn't formed an opinion about it
> ("it's too new!"). And he's certainly been featured on the New Aesthetic
> Tumblr. Bruce Sterling has an essay in his monograph. Lindsay Howard,
> Eyebeam's new curatorial fellow who was moderating, responded with "it's an
> essay in the works."
>
> The response that doesn't make any sense to me is "this has all been
> discussed before." 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.
>
> I do think it's related to some of the stuff being curated by Paola
> Antonelli at MoMA, but the show that comes to mind to me more is Re:Group
> (also at Eyebeam) from a couple years ago. Or maybe early 2000s Resfest?
>
> Dan
>
|