A very interesting conversation, just wanted to add a thought.
@Paul Waelder, just as I was reading your initial comments about Sedition
art I discovered today their one of their first real digital artwork, a
data visualisation piece by Aaron Koblin
This opens a whole new world to that platform. A world of "virtual art"
that has been created using code and is viewed on the screen. I think the
interesting point of this piece is the link to the viewer as it represents
real world data. I would be interested to know what you think of this piece
in relation to new media art.
+44 (0) 7717303537
Netil House, Hackney
International Festival of Post-Digital Culture
*Innovation, Creativity and Forward Thinking*
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> These questions regarding new media vs mainstream art have been rehearsed
> many times and have a number of answers. The argument for new media
> practice to be considered as part of mainstream art is compelling as
> ghettoisation does nobody favours and such reconciliation would help new
> media practice escapes its own discursive limitations (this assumes the art
> world is interested - it might not be, due to its own limitations).
> However, the argument for sustaining difference is also compelling. Many
> new media artists have chosen to work with new media because of their
> disaffection or distress with how contemporary art is developed, produced,
> consumed and commodified. For many the constant reinvention and instability
> that are the characteristics of new media (where the means of making and
> dissemination are always under review, shifting with changing technical
> substrates and socio/conceptual frameworks) is the main attraction - and
> for these artists the discourses of the mainstream artworld are anathema.
> For some artists this shifting context is the point of their work, whilst
> for the artworld such a technical focus is of little interest. So, why
> bother trying to build bridges? Michael Naimark discusses this in depth in
> his essay 'First Word Art / Last Word Art' (
> http://www.naimark.net/writing/firstword.html ) and I also consider it
> within the larger context of a discussion about the relationship between
> creative practice and practice based research in 'New Media: The First Word
> in Art' ( http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf ).
> I've spent my life as an artist working with new media and have oscillated
> between these two positions. I'm no nearer knowing which is the better
> strategy but perhaps having the capacity to oscillate is the point - even
> if such a schizoid approach can be exhausting it can also be strangely
> On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:04, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:
> > Finally, and following your statement: "I'm pretty sure new media art
> will never achieve it as a whole, and under this definition", I think that
> this is quite possible and that we may start to think about getting rid of
> this label. The question "why do we call it new media art and not just
> art?" has come up frequently in talks with artists and in my opinion we are
> kind of trapped in this self-made ghetto that is at the same time quite
> comfortable because it creates a separate art world in which artists,
> curators, researchers, etc. can gain recognition quicker (within the
> boundaries of this particular art world).
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices