To further muddy the waters (and for fun),
WHAT IF WE START WITH...
>Goodness. Another long rant on wired, like a curate's egg, good and
>bad in parts.
>But finally someone has said out loud that,
>"The appreciation of generative art requires an aesthetics of process."
>""Generative art" is not the be-all and end-all of art, or design,
>or engineering, or coding, or architecture. It's an approach, a
>technique, and a mode of perception."
>which, frankly, is what some of us have been saying more generally
>about new media art (in relation to Art with a capital A) for quite
>some time now.
>I like Olia's quip retold by Sterling that the new aesthetic is new
>media without the media. which isn't exactly saying that it is only
>But I also especially like Saul's comments - and Michael's and
>Honor's - which have followed on this list, which tease these things
>out a little further, agreeing that it is not worth discounting the
>new aesthetic for not being new, but rather to consider how it sits,
>both looking back _and_ looking forward -- so I wonder, for
>instance, about the show BitStreams at the Whitney Museum from 2001,
>could we look back and see the work in that show through the lens of
>the new aesthetic? Is there scope for parallel history telling here
>- as Roger Malina has suggested? Certainly lots of work in that show
>was generative, if we are to follow Sterling's lead regarding one of
>the places the new aesthetic has perhaps come from.
>I also deeply appreciate Armin's and Nick's comments about histories
>and recouperation strategies (and I wasn't saying there was an
>art/design dichotomy per se, for the record, I was rather feebly
>pointing out how new media art has been understood and appreciated
>sometimes more often across the traditional boundaries present in
>museums, for example at MoMA, and that there are as a result, for
>those of us observing these things, sometimes different crowds of
>interest around works, and therefore different histories which get
>The human and the thing-i-ness of all this -- as art -- still is out
>there to be described. (maybe that's what, on ten years reflection,
>I didn't much like about the BitStreams show, the messy human got a
>little lost in all the digital technical trickery of the glossier
>works? So there you go Saul, another event to "be jury-rigged and
>used to prop up New Aesthetics in a longer timeline"?). As Honor
>said "Aesthetics and art are not interchangeable concepts" and yet a
>problem with histories of new media art is that the works in
>question have not been often considered as 'art' because they
>perhaps didn't spend as much time engaging in aesthetic debates, as
>in social/political/technical/economic ones, which is often what
>good art does best.
>running out of steam... someone take over!
>On 19 Apr 2012, at 18:36, Dennis Moser wrote:
>> More from Mr. Sterling today:
> > Dennis