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  September 2012

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING September 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 3 Sep 2012 to 4 Sep 2012 (#2012-136)

From:

Julia Kaganskiy <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Julia Kaganskiy <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:39:40 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1811 lines)

Hi all,

I've been a silent observer on this list for a while and have really
appreciated and enjoyed all your comments on Claire's article. I'm really
loving the discussion and want to also thank Honor for starting and for
drawing my attention to it.

I'm trying to find the time to write a proper article in response for The
Creators Project, but in the meantime, I wanted to throw a few thoughts out
there on this email list while the topic is still fresh.

What's interesting to me is that I almost feel like I read a different
article than a lot of people. Sure, Claire makes some inflammatory and
dismissive, maybe even misinformed comments in there, but in general, her
tone is very tempered overall (maybe I felt this because I read Honor's
article and a few other reactions to her piece before I read the actual
piece, so I was expecting the worst when I came to it).

In any case, what I took away from it was that a lot of her critics seem to
be missing the point when they hone in on the fact that Claire is
dismissing an entire community of media artists while at the same time
lamenting their disenfranchisement from the art world and the art world's
lack of engagement with the pressing issues of this technological moment.
To me, what her article actually seemed to be about is how, despite the
contemporary art world's apparent dissavowal of technology, it is still
producing work that is informed by technology in spite of itself. The
current trends in performance art, sculpture, video, etc. are informed by
the logic, systems, social interactions, etc. of our present day culture,
which is so infused with the technological that it's completely
unavoidable.

The article seemed to be trying to hold a mirror to the art world and
saying, "You think you're above this? You're deluding yourself." And she
did this not by talking about the artists that they'd be quick to dismiss
as "the others" as those part of that "specialized field" that isn't part
of their domain, but by drawing examples from among their own, so as to
make the message more powerful and poignant.

I know we've all got our feathers brustled about the repeated poor choice
of language used by Claire, some brilliant examples of which have been
quoted heavily throughout on this thread, but this paragraph is the one
that seemed to be the point she was driving at, and one that I'd argue is
quite a valid one.

*In fact, the most prevalent trends in contemporary art since the ’90s seem
united in their apparent eschewal of the digital and the virtual.
Performance art, social practice, assemblage-based sculpture, painting on
canvas, the “archival impulse,” analog film, and the fascination with
modernist design and architecture: At first glance, none of these formats
appear to have anything to do with digital media, and when they are
discussed, it is typically in relation to previous artistic practices
across the twentieth century.˛ But when we examine these dominant forms of
contemporary art more closely, their operational logic and systems of
spectatorship prove intimately connected to the technological revolution we
are undergoing. I am not claiming that these artistic strategies are
conscious reactions to (or implicit denunciations of) an information
society; rather, I am suggesting that the digital is, on a deep level, the
shaping condition—even the structuring paradox—that determines artistic
decisions to work with certain formats and media. Its subterranean presence
is comparable to the rise of television as the backdrop to art of the
1960s. One word that might be used to describe this dynamic—a preoccupation
that is present but denied, perpetually active but apparently buried—is
disavowal: I know, but all the same . . .*
*
*
*
*

*Julia Kaganskiy*

Global Editor

The Creators Project

VICE // Intel

www.thecreatorsproject.com

@creatorsproject <http://www.twitter.com/creatorsproject>

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:00 PM, NEW-MEDIA-CURATING automatic digest system <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> There are 15 messages totaling 1750 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum (14)
>   2. on curating / curating the planet
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:11:29 +0100
> From:    James Wallbank <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> In my view the key difference (between the mainstream and the media art
> world) is simple:
>
> * The media art world engages with the economics of abundance.
> * The mainstream art world engages with the economics of scarcity.
>
> Even now, more than 10 years after electronic networking became
> completely pervasive, it's still the case that existing structures for
> supporting, encouraging, evaluating and disseminating intellectual
> products (both artworks AND critiques) simply cannot cope with the
> REALITY that digital networks allow ideas to be produced, copied,
> modified, remixed and disseminated virtually without cost.
>
> But, of course - just because the reproduction and distribution costs
> are next to nothing, that doesn't mean that the origination costs are
> negligible. Having incisive, relevant and timely insights takes time,
> experience and expertise.
>
> The mainstream art world (in common with traditional academic journals,
> the mainstream music industry and the traditional broadcast media) are
> working with an increasingly broken models of economic scarcity -
> whether that's scarcity of artifact, scarcity of spectacle, or scarcity
> of airtime.
>
> If they cling to these models, this doesn't mean that these industries
> will collapse - they will simply recede into an increasingly exclusive,
> irrelevant (but perhaps "sustainable") enclaves - cultural gated
> communities which don't get to grips with the real experience of media
> technologies as they manifest in wider society.
>
> So how does telling you this help me get paid?
>
> Yours, in a spirit of sharing and generosity,
>
> James
> =====
>
> On 02/09/12 16:20, Simon Biggs wrote:
> > More of the same really. She points out that in the domain of media
> artthese issues are explicitly addressed whilst in the mainstream art
> worldthey generally are not.
> >
> > Why is this surprising? It isn't. The primary characteristic of the
> media artist is that they foreground the mediality of what they do -
> whetherthat involves new media or old. It's not the media they use that is
> necessarily significant but how they consider it reflexively in their
> practice. The same applies to how such work is theorised and historicised.
> Mediaart is media art because the media is a major consideration in its
> ontology.
> >
> > The main stream art world operates on a different paradigm, where
> mediaare so well established that they become more or less invisible (eg:
> painting, sculpture, print, etc). Even some recently (but now less than)
> newmedia have taken on this mantle of invisibility (eg: video,
> photography,etc). Sometimes mainstream and media art cross-over and, for a
> couple ofdecades, that crossing-over was almost default, at least at the
> cutting edge of contemporary art (here I'm thinking of the 60's, 70's and,
> to a lesser degree, the 80's) when mediality was a pervasive issue in the
> arts (this was arguably driven by socio-political concerns). That was a
> time when artists were rethinking the fundamentals of what they were doing
> (andhow) and this meant many of them were media artists (even if they
> didn'tconsider themselves to be). However, over the last 20 years or so
> issuesof mediality have faded for mainstream artists, just as concerns
> about art's ontology have faded from view. Contemporary
>  art is no longer reflexive. This has happened at the same time as the
> process of digital convergence has accelerated and, more or less, completed.
> >
> > This last point, about how media becomes unimportant as it matures,
> might appear to be surprising. But perhaps it isn't, as such media become
> instrumental to the most banal aspects of life. Perhaps the question
> therefore is, what is the digital equivalent of "merda d'artista"?
> >
> > best
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 2 Sep 2012, at 12:49, Honor Harger wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am guessing you've all probably read Claire Bishop's fascinating
> >> essay in Art Forum, the "Digital Divide"?
> >> http://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201207&id=31944
> >>
> >> "So why do I have a sense that the appearance and content of
> >> contemporary art have been curiously unresponsive to the total
> >> upheaval in our labor and leisure inaugurated by the digital
> >> revolution? While many artists use digital technology, how many
> >> really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and
> >> filter affect through the digital? How many thematize this, or
> >> reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by, the
> >> digitization of our existence? I find it strange that I can count on
> >> one hand the works of art that do seem to undertake this task
> >> [....]
> >> There is, of course, an entire sphere of "new media" art, but this is
> >> a specialized field of its own: It rarely overlaps with the
> >> mainstream art world (commercial galleries, the Turner Prize,
> >> national pavilions at Venice). While this split is itself undoubtedly
> >> symptomatic, the mainstream art world and its response to the digital
> >> are the focus of this essay."
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in your eruditions on this.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> Honor
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >>
> >> Honor Harger
> >> Director, Lighthouse
> >> Brighton, UK
> >> http://www.lighthouse.org.uk
> >>
> >> Biography
> >> http://about.me/honor
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Simon Biggs
> > [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
> skype: simonbiggsuk
> >
> > [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> >
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> James Wallbank
> CEO, Access Space Network Ltd.
> Access Space, Unit 1, AVEC Building, 3-7 Sidney St, Sheffield S1 4RG
> Access Space is UK Registered Charity: #1103837
> Tel: +44 (0)114 2495522
> Fax: +44 (0)114 2495533
> Web: http://access-space.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:46:23 +0000
> From:    Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> Dear CRUMBs
> thanks to Honor for starting this thread. I've written some things which I
> will post here, and then post a shorter version on the ArtForum comment
> thread... and then get to Twitter. Apologies that CRUMB has not sorted out
> and integrated its Twitter/Facebook/Blog functionality yet -- this is a
> task for the new school year once we get our physical office move
> completed! This week we are gearing up to get settled over on the main city
> campus and to welcome new PhD students and new MA Curating students, so
> having this discussion now is timely.
>
>
> My first reactions to Claire Bishop’s ArtForum essay is that it will be
> useful for teaching. Especially for teaching my students who already know
> that the art they should be paying attention to is the ‘art after new
> media’. Without getting bogged down too much in why new media art emerged
> in its own scene and why contemporary art has ignored it, her essay asks a
> bigger, and just as useful question – why does contemporary art ignore our
> digital condition? Cue Lyotard as Bishop’s first of many missing references
> (and I don’t mean his show but his report on knowledge!). It is telling
> that her first evidence of the works she “can count on one hand” which do
> address our digital age are three videos works – not remotely commenting,
> to my mind, in form and behaviour, on the digital in terms of means of
> production and dissemination. Cue the first of Bishop’s many confusing
> contradictions as to what kind of work might comment on the digital, and
> her stated wilful ignorance of the work that actually does. As I read the
> article I kept wanting to insert examples from the missing field of new
> media art to round out her argument given that she had said she wouldn’t.
> Indeed I almost just did a Steve Dietz-ish rewriting of her article,
> swapping all the examples for different ones. For the postcard example she
> uses I’d put in George Legrady’s Slippery Traces (1995.
> http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~g.legrady/glWeb/Projects/slippery/Slippery.html)
> For the archive example she uses I’d add Olia Lialina’s My Boyfriend Came
> Back from the War (1996. http://rhizome.org/artbase/artwork/1729/), etc.
>
> But tit for tat is rarely a good tactic, especially when it is a well
> written article with plenty of food for thought anyway. What I agree with
> are roughly the following sentiments:
>
> “…that the digital is, on a deep level, the shaping condition—even the
> structuring paradox—that determines artistic decisions to work with certain
> formats and media…”
>
> Yes. Because part of the artistic decision making process is familiarity,
> choice, and consideration of future endeavours (wanting to continue to make
> art, to be a ‘success’ – as discussed in the salon at the AND Festival last
> Thursday). If you are the kind of artist who wants to make works which will
> sell into a collection, or last a long time, you might be inclined to stick
> with more stable media, or techniques you know and have practiced a lot.
> New media artists do this too. Or formats which can be documented and which
> have a market based on documentation.
>
> Bishop hints as much herself when she says,
>
> “Is there a sense of fear underlying visual art’s disavowal of new media?
> Faced with the infinite multiplicity of digital files, the uniqueness of
> the art object needs to be reasserted in the face of its infinite,
> uncontrollable dissemination via Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.”
>
> The need to reassert the object of course is only important if you are
> playing in the Art World and not just practicing art. There is a difference
> I think.
>
> The second argument I agree with is one that Bishop doesn’t fully take up:
>
> “Lev Manovich presciently observed that in foregrounding two-way
> communication as a fundamental cultural activity (as opposed to the one-way
> flow of a film or book), the Internet asks us to reconsider the very
> paradigm of an aesthetic object: Can communication between users become the
> subject of an aesthetic?”
>
> And here there is both a long history of art which can be mined, as well
> as new work which could be considered which enacts protocols, which
> questions the technological basis of the work, which reflects our
> condition. There is not nearly enough art history written about this. Cue
> Lyotard again (the show this time).
>
> And Bishop’s third observation that I think is true and useful is that,
>
> “Questions of originality and authorship are no longer the point; instead,
> the emphasis is on a meaningful recontextualization of existing artifacts.”
>
> I agree in part because I think this is also the case – sometimes has
> always been – in new media art as well. Only we are not always dealing with
> artifacts, but network traffic, ‘artefacting’ in a new media sense of
> traces (think of GPS mapping/drawing works for instance).
>
> The difficult part of Bishop’s article to reconcile is her positing of a
> ‘disavowal.’ On one hand she is right, that it has been a wilful disregard
> (though I would argue far more on the part of institutionalised curators,
> gallerists and art critics/art historians, including herself here, than on
> the part of artists – and I speak from experience, having been encouraged
> to embrace the disavowal by some of my teachers when I did my MA in
> Curating at Bard College in New York way way back in 1997-8. I recall that
> I visited the offices of artnetweb, and ada’web, and I came back to college
> very excited about curating my final degree show entirely online and I was
> very strongly warned against it. I was told I had to work with art objects
> and was arranged to have an internship in a sculpture garden, which I
> turned down in favour of working with the Art Metropole collection…. But
> that’s another story for another time). On the other hand, the disavowal
> could be looked at, in retrospect, as laziness, as lack of capacity, as
> ignorance of opportunity. Her conclusion is that,
>
> “If the digital means anything for visual art, it is the need to take
> stock of this orientation and to question art’s most treasured assumptions.
> At its most utopian, the digital revolution opens up a new dematerialized,
> deauthored, and unmarketable reality of collective culture; at its worst,
> it signals the impending obsolescence of visual art itself.”
>
> This actually makes me very happy. As we all know there is no chance that
> art will become obsolete, but there is a good chance that Art and the
> trappings of the Art World could, and for some in the new media sector,
> that’s what we’ve been working towards – not getting included within Art’s
> boundaries, but obliterating boundaries altogether, seeing art not as a
> noun but as a verb, as something one does, one practices, not something
> that is. Hooray for that!
>
> *
>
> Okay, so having written that before having read any of the comments on the
> article, either on ArtForum, here on CRUMB, or on Twitter, here are some
> other comments from me.
>
> I agree with Mark Garrett that
>
> “The art world is stuck in a rut, and it can only remain relevant to
> others, by expanding and letting in new ideas beyond its hermetically
> sealed silos.” Keep up the good work Furtherfield!
>
> Honor Harger is completely correct to call Bishop on her comment that code
> is not intelligible to humans – this is exactly the kind of laziness around
> truly engaging with the ‘artefects’ of digital culture which I am referring
> to above. When I worked at an American contemporary art museum I was often
> called into the chief curator’s office to get the net art on his browser
> ‘to go away’ as he was reluctant, downright resistant, to engaging with it
> and learning how it behaved even enough to turn it off. Curators are busy
> people, they like their browsers to enable their research, not to be spaces
> where their research competes with viewing actual art rather than just
> documentation of it. Okay, I’m being flippant.
>
> I love Jon Ippolito’s use of numbers to indicate, as in the words of
> Caitlin Jones from her great article in the Believer Magazine about Cory
> Arcangel, “my art world is bigger than your art world”. This is exactly the
> kind of thinking we need – audience led – rather than one which excludes
> because it doesn’t fit the argument.
>
> Many people have raised the problem of art history – do we wait until it
> pays attention after the fact to the art being made now and points it out
> as having been significant? If we write it now, how do we (especially when,
> in my case anyway, academic funding bodies don’t recognize what you do as
> art history and resent your implication that their field has missed
> something because it is stuck in old ways of prioritizing authorship or
> media-specific analysis)? These are difficult questions with no easy
> answers, but they are up to us to solve, which is why I agreed to co-chair
> Rewire, the media art histories conference. Such platforms are themselves
> problematic, as like all academic endeavors they often seek to reaffirm
> boundaries of a discipline, or if having invented a new discipline to
> egotistically protect it from incursions… I hoped that through Rewire my
> cochairs and I would expand the discussions around media art to include
> more about networked practices, protocols and databases than had been
> included before, to move discussions about craft and making forward from
> old media nostalgia, to widen the geographic scope. I think we succeeded in
> parts, but it’s an ongoing concern that I, as you also, can only address
> through my continued curatorial, publishing, and academic work.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:28:14 +0000
> From:    Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> I also think I should mention that we should be not taking Bishop's
> article entirely out of context of the very welcome September issue of
> ArtForum, which has a spot-on introduction from its editor Michelle Kuo
> which actually begins with the letter which Paul Brown posted the link to!
> Michelle Kuo has a PhD which looked at Experiments in Art and Technology,
> and who was very keen to talk at Rewire but due to scheduling concerns
> couldn't make it.
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=31950
>
> To that end, to add to ArtForum’s own archival response, here is a curated
> selection of readings about new media art published in ArtForum as sourced
> from the online archive, in no particular order:
>
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=10623 - Nam June Paik
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=20619 - Trevor Paglen
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=30804 - review of Younger Than Jesus
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=5670 - Rafael Lozano Hemmer
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=21993 - review of Predrive: After
> Technology
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=29975 - review of New Document
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=6580 - Ant Farm
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=1672 - Christiane Paul’s Hotlist
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2888 - Jon Ippolito’s hotlist
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22120 - Barbara London
>
> http://artforum.com/news/week=200116#news84 - Variable Media Initiative
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=20592 - review of Superlight
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=21297 - review of Untethered
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=4509 - Sylvere Lotringer
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=19211 - Claude Closky
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=465 - Rachel Greene on web art
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=278 - etoy
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=8261 - The Yes Men
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=20915 - on service aesthetics in art
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22117 - Dara Birnbaum and Cory Arcangel
>
> http://artforum.com/diary/id=25360 - review of Seven on Seven
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2704 - Maciej Wisniewski /
> Open_Source_Art_Hack
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:57:05 +0100
> From:    Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> I know what the authors means when she writes "to avoid lapsing into a
> retrograde medium specificity, on the one hand, or technological
> determinism, on the other" but this is a well worn post-modern mantra that
> might not be that useful anymore.
>
> It is arguable whether the media specificity of a work is any longer
> irrelevant. Many vital works are being produced that consider their
> mediality as essential to appreciating the work. This is especially the
> case for works that seek to use media characteristics to shift the way the
> work is made, disseminated and engaged. Media art, by definition, does just
> this. So, to follow the author's logic, media art is irrelevant as it
> considers media specificity to be important.
>
> The issue of technological determinism is a more complex one. It was
> probably necessary, in the early days of PM, to fight the dominant view of
> how history was made; by great people, their wars and inventions. PM sought
> to establish a more nuanced and broader apprehension of who and how the
> (human) world was made. However, that doesn't mean technology is therefore
> not part of the debate. In a broader context is remains a key consideration
> - perhaps more so as we begin to see, post ANT, how it operates virally in
> liaison with other factors. Foucault's concept of the dispositif relies on
> this expanded approach to power relations and remains a powerful framework
> for understanding them. I have a feeling this author is, in repeating this
> antique mantra, glossing over something very important and highlighting
> what is so wrong not only with the logic that underpins the art world (and
> magazines like Artforum) but also much of the pop-theory it depends on.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:28, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
> > I also think I should mention that we should be not taking Bishop's
> article entirely out of context of the very welcome September issue of
> ArtForum, which has a spot-on introduction from its editor Michelle Kuo
> which actually begins with the letter which Paul Brown posted the link to!
> Michelle Kuo has a PhD which looked at Experiments in Art and Technology,
> and who was very keen to talk at Rewire but due to scheduling concerns
> couldn't make it.
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=31950
> >
> > To that end, to add to ArtForum’s own archival response, here is a
> curated selection of readings about new media art published in ArtForum as
> sourced from the online archive, in no particular order:
> >
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=10623 - Nam June Paik
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20619 - Trevor Paglen
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=30804 - review of Younger Than Jesus
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=5670 - Rafael Lozano Hemmer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21993 - review of Predrive: After
> Technology
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=29975 - review of New Document
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=6580 - Ant Farm
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=1672 - Christiane Paul’s Hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2888 - Jon Ippolito’s hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22120 - Barbara London
> >
> > http://artforum.com/news/week=200116#news84 - Variable Media Initiative
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20592 - review of Superlight
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21297 - review of Untethered
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=4509 - Sylvere Lotringer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=19211 - Claude Closky
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=465 - Rachel Greene on web art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=278 - etoy
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=8261 - The Yes Men
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=20915 - on service aesthetics in art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22117 - Dara Birnbaum and Cory Arcangel
> >
> > http://artforum.com/diary/id=25360 - review of Seven on Seven
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2704 - Maciej Wisniewski /
> Open_Source_Art_Hack
> >
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
> simonbiggsuk
>
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:20:05 +0000
> From:    Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> ah, now we are getting somewhere!
>
> this is the problem with media art history as it has been formulated thus
> far, to my mind. that we know which camps we want to get out of, but we
> don't have the guidelines or exemplary art historians with new methods to
> follow, quite yet.
>
> of course ArtForum will not challenge too stringently the logic which
> underpins the art world, and so one can criticise this intro for doing
> that... but editing is a curatorial activity and it is a good pile of
> articles (i've not read them all yet) -- Kittler, A-Life, Paik, McLuhan --
> come on you have to admit it's a great lineup for an issue, well overdue!
> http://artforum.com/inprint/
>
> Michelle Kuo writes, "Not only are media everywhere; they are in the
> middle of everything, as the word’s etymology suggests. They are conduits
> rather than discrete objects: unstable constellations of machines, signals,
> theories, processes, and materials. And what better way to understand this
> capricious network than through close readings of its nodes, of individual
> works or projects?"
>
> Close readings indeed. So suggestions welcome for your ideal ArtForum
> issue on 50 years of art: the authors, the artists, the book reviews, the
> topics....
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:57, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
> I know what the authors means when she writes "to avoid lapsing into a
> retrograde medium specificity, on the one hand, or technological
> determinism, on the other" but this is a well worn post-modern mantra that
> might not be that useful anymore.
>
> It is arguable whether the media specificity of a work is any longer
> irrelevant. Many vital works are being produced that consider their
> mediality as essential to appreciating the work. This is especially the
> case for works that seek to use media characteristics to shift the way the
> work is made, disseminated and engaged. Media art, by definition, does just
> this. So, to follow the author's logic, media art is irrelevant as it
> considers media specificity to be important.
>
> The issue of technological determinism is a more complex one. It was
> probably necessary, in the early days of PM, to fight the dominant view of
> how history was made; by great people, their wars and inventions. PM sought
> to establish a more nuanced and broader apprehension of who and how the
> (human) world was made. However, that doesn't mean technology is therefore
> not part of the debate. In a broader context is remains a key consideration
> - perhaps more so as we begin to see, post ANT, how it operates virally in
> liaison with other factors. Foucault's concept of the dispositif relies on
> this expanded approach to power relations and remains a powerful framework
> for understanding them. I have a feeling this author is, in repeating this
> antique mantra, glossing over something very important and highlighting
> what is so wrong not only with the logic that underpins the art world (and
> magazines like Artforum) but also much of the pop-theory it depends on.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:28, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
> I also think I should mention that we should be not taking Bishop's
> article entirely out of context of the very welcome September issue of
> ArtForum, which has a spot-on introduction from its editor Michelle Kuo
> which actually begins with the letter which Paul Brown posted the link to!
> Michelle Kuo has a PhD which looked at Experiments in Art and Technology,
> and who was very keen to talk at Rewire but due to scheduling concerns
> couldn't make it.
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=31950
>
> To that end, to add to ArtForum’s own archival response, here is a curated
> selection of readings about new media art published in ArtForum as sourced
> from the online archive, in no particular order:
>
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=10623 - Nam June Paik
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=20619 - Trevor Paglen
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=30804 - review of Younger Than Jesus
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=5670 - Rafael Lozano Hemmer
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=21993 - review of Predrive: After
> Technology
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=29975 - review of New Document
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=6580 - Ant Farm
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=1672 - Christiane Paul’s Hotlist
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2888 - Jon Ippolito’s hotlist
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22120 - Barbara London
>
> http://artforum.com/news/week=200116#news84 - Variable Media Initiative
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=20592 - review of Superlight
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=21297 - review of Untethered
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=4509 - Sylvere Lotringer
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=19211 - Claude Closky
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=465 - Rachel Greene on web art
>
> http://artforum.com/archive/id=278 - etoy
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=8261 - The Yes Men
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=20915 - on service aesthetics in art
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22117 - Dara Birnbaum and Cory Arcangel
>
> http://artforum.com/diary/id=25360 - review of Seven on Seven
>
> http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2704 - Maciej Wisniewski /
> Open_Source_Art_Hack
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Edinburgh College of Art,
> University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:03:32 -0500
> From:    Nathaniel Stern <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> The one point I keep coming back to when I read and re-read Bishop's
> article is that perhaps the question is not in what digital artists have
> mostly failed to produce, but in what mainstream theorists and critics have
> mostly failed to engage with/in their work.
>
> nathaniel
> http://nathanielstern.com
>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > ah, now we are getting somewhere!
> >
> > this is the problem with media art history as it has been formulated
> thus far, to my mind. that we know which camps we want to get out of, but
> we don't have the guidelines or exemplary art historians with new methods
> to follow, quite yet.
> >
> > of course ArtForum will not challenge too stringently the logic which
> underpins the art world, and so one can criticise this intro for doing
> that... but editing is a curatorial activity and it is a good pile of
> articles (i've not read them all yet) -- Kittler, A-Life, Paik, McLuhan --
> come on you have to admit it's a great lineup for an issue, well overdue!
> http://artforum.com/inprint/
> >
> > Michelle Kuo writes, "Not only are media everywhere; they are in the
> middle of everything, as the word’s etymology suggests. They are conduits
> rather than discrete objects: unstable constellations of machines, signals,
> theories, processes, and materials. And what better way to understand this
> capricious network than through close readings of its nodes, of individual
> works or projects?"
> >
> > Close readings indeed. So suggestions welcome for your ideal ArtForum
> issue on 50 years of art: the authors, the artists, the book reviews, the
> topics....
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:57, Simon Biggs wrote:
> >
> > I know what the authors means when she writes "to avoid lapsing into a
> retrograde medium specificity, on the one hand, or technological
> determinism, on the other" but this is a well worn post-modern mantra that
> might not be that useful anymore.
> >
> > It is arguable whether the media specificity of a work is any longer
> irrelevant. Many vital works are being produced that consider their
> mediality as essential to appreciating the work. This is especially the
> case for works that seek to use media characteristics to shift the way the
> work is made, disseminated and engaged. Media art, by definition, does just
> this. So, to follow the author's logic, media art is irrelevant as it
> considers media specificity to be important.
> >
> > The issue of technological determinism is a more complex one. It was
> probably necessary, in the early days of PM, to fight the dominant view of
> how history was made; by great people, their wars and inventions. PM sought
> to establish a more nuanced and broader apprehension of who and how the
> (human) world was made. However, that doesn't mean technology is therefore
> not part of the debate. In a broader context is remains a key consideration
> - perhaps more so as we begin to see, post ANT, how it operates virally in
> liaison with other factors. Foucault's concept of the dispositif relies on
> this expanded approach to power relations and remains a powerful framework
> for understanding them. I have a feeling this author is, in repeating this
> antique mantra, glossing over something very important and highlighting
> what is so wrong not only with the logic that underpins the art world (and
> magazines like Artforum) but also much of the pop-theory it depends on.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:28, Sarah Cook wrote:
> >
> > I also think I should mention that we should be not taking Bishop's
> article entirely out of context of the very welcome September issue of
> ArtForum, which has a spot-on introduction from its editor Michelle Kuo
> which actually begins with the letter which Paul Brown posted the link to!
> Michelle Kuo has a PhD which looked at Experiments in Art and Technology,
> and who was very keen to talk at Rewire but due to scheduling concerns
> couldn't make it.
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=31950
> >
> > To that end, to add to ArtForum’s own archival response, here is a
> curated selection of readings about new media art published in ArtForum as
> sourced from the online archive, in no particular order:
> >
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=10623 - Nam June Paik
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20619 - Trevor Paglen
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=30804 - review of Younger Than Jesus
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=5670 - Rafael Lozano Hemmer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21993 - review of Predrive: After
> Technology
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=29975 - review of New Document
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=6580 - Ant Farm
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=1672 - Christiane Paul’s Hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2888 - Jon Ippolito’s hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22120 - Barbara London
> >
> > http://artforum.com/news/week=200116#news84 - Variable Media Initiative
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20592 - review of Superlight
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21297 - review of Untethered
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=4509 - Sylvere Lotringer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=19211 - Claude Closky
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=465 - Rachel Greene on web art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=278 - etoy
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=8261 - The Yes Men
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=20915 - on service aesthetics in art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22117 - Dara Birnbaum and Cory Arcangel
> >
> > http://artforum.com/diary/id=25360 - review of Seven on Seven
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2704 - Maciej Wisniewski /
> Open_Source_Art_Hack
> >
> >
> >
> > Simon Biggs
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
> >
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Edinburgh College of Art,
> University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> >
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:38:38 +0100
> From:    Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> I hate the term "turn". But it is often a good idea to steal your
> opponents weapons and turn them back against them. So, we've had the
> material turn and the anthropological turn. Let's propose the mediale turn
> - a conception of mediality that recognises it as holistically material and
> immaterial, technical and social, object and network, discrete and
> indiscrete.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 13:20, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
> > ah, now we are getting somewhere!
> >
> > this is the problem with media art history as it has been formulated
> thus far, to my mind. that we know which camps we want to get out of, but
> we don't have the guidelines or exemplary art historians with new methods
> to follow, quite yet.
> >
> > of course ArtForum will not challenge too stringently the logic which
> underpins the art world, and so one can criticise this intro for doing
> that... but editing is a curatorial activity and it is a good pile of
> articles (i've not read them all yet) -- Kittler, A-Life, Paik, McLuhan --
> come on you have to admit it's a great lineup for an issue, well overdue!
> http://artforum.com/inprint/
> >
> > Michelle Kuo writes, "Not only are media everywhere; they are in the
> middle of everything, as the word’s etymology suggests. They are conduits
> rather than discrete objects: unstable constellations of machines, signals,
> theories, processes, and materials. And what better way to understand this
> capricious network than through close readings of its nodes, of individual
> works or projects?"
> >
> > Close readings indeed. So suggestions welcome for your ideal ArtForum
> issue on 50 years of art: the authors, the artists, the book reviews, the
> topics....
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:57, Simon Biggs wrote:
> >
> > I know what the authors means when she writes "to avoid lapsing into a
> retrograde medium specificity, on the one hand, or technological
> determinism, on the other" but this is a well worn post-modern mantra that
> might not be that useful anymore.
> >
> > It is arguable whether the media specificity of a work is any longer
> irrelevant. Many vital works are being produced that consider their
> mediality as essential to appreciating the work. This is especially the
> case for works that seek to use media characteristics to shift the way the
> work is made, disseminated and engaged. Media art, by definition, does just
> this. So, to follow the author's logic, media art is irrelevant as it
> considers media specificity to be important.
> >
> > The issue of technological determinism is a more complex one. It was
> probably necessary, in the early days of PM, to fight the dominant view of
> how history was made; by great people, their wars and inventions. PM sought
> to establish a more nuanced and broader apprehension of who and how the
> (human) world was made. However, that doesn't mean technology is therefore
> not part of the debate. In a broader context is remains a key consideration
> - perhaps more so as we begin to see, post ANT, how it operates virally in
> liaison with other factors. Foucault's concept of the dispositif relies on
> this expanded approach to power relations and remains a powerful framework
> for understanding them. I have a feeling this author is, in repeating this
> antique mantra, glossing over something very important and highlighting
> what is so wrong not only with the logic that underpins the art world (and
> magazines like Artforum) but also much of the pop-theory it depends on.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 4 Sep 2012, at 12:28, Sarah Cook wrote:
> >
> > I also think I should mention that we should be not taking Bishop's
> article entirely out of context of the very welcome September issue of
> ArtForum, which has a spot-on introduction from its editor Michelle Kuo
> which actually begins with the letter which Paul Brown posted the link to!
> Michelle Kuo has a PhD which looked at Experiments in Art and Technology,
> and who was very keen to talk at Rewire but due to scheduling concerns
> couldn't make it.
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=31950
> >
> > To that end, to add to ArtForum’s own archival response, here is a
> curated selection of readings about new media art published in ArtForum as
> sourced from the online archive, in no particular order:
> >
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=10623 - Nam June Paik
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20619 - Trevor Paglen
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=30804 - review of Younger Than Jesus
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=5670 - Rafael Lozano Hemmer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21993 - review of Predrive: After
> Technology
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=29975 - review of New Document
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=6580 - Ant Farm
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=1672 - Christiane Paul’s Hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2888 - Jon Ippolito’s hotlist
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22120 - Barbara London
> >
> > http://artforum.com/news/week=200116#news84 - Variable Media Initiative
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=20592 - review of Superlight
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=21297 - review of Untethered
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=4509 - Sylvere Lotringer
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=19211 - Claude Closky
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=465 - Rachel Greene on web art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/archive/id=278 - etoy
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=8261 - The Yes Men
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=20915 - on service aesthetics in art
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=22117 - Dara Birnbaum and Cory Arcangel
> >
> > http://artforum.com/diary/id=25360 - review of Seven on Seven
> >
> > http://artforum.com/inprint/id=2704 - Maciej Wisniewski /
> Open_Source_Art_Hack
> >
> >
> >
> > Simon Biggs
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
> >
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Edinburgh College of Art,
> University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> >
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> >
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
> simonbiggsuk
>
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:28:24 -0400
> From:    Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> Nathaniel,
>
> Your explanation works for me. Bishop's essay seems very tautological. It
> goes something like this:
> Art recognized as worthy by the mainstream art world (a "world" implicitly
> and vaguely understood by the readers of artForum) is worthy by definition.
> The mainstream art world has not recognized a lot of this work (which
> work? can't say, it's not recognized) as worthy art.
> So let's take a crack at exploring what's wrong with this work.
>
> +++++++++++++
>
> I am reminded of one of Debord's descriptions of the spectacle: "[The
> spectacle] says, 'that which appears is good, that which is good appears.'"
>
> Actually, what's "wrong" with the work (digital work? new media work?
> can't say, the distinction is not recognized) is that it foregrounds and
> problematizes the theoretical criteria that artForum has historically
> relied upon to recognize worthy art.
>
> +++++++++++++
>
> Once we are sufficiently able to recognize its worth, we will send experts
> out to properly recuperate it, and we will inform you of its (theoretical,
> historical, philosophical, market) value. We might even hire one of you to
> writ the essay!
>
> Best,
> Curt
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Nathaniel Stern wrote:
>
> > The one point I keep coming back to when I read and re-read Bishop's
> article is that perhaps the question is not in what digital artists have
> mostly failed to produce, but in what mainstream theorists and critics have
> mostly failed to engage with/in their work.
> >
> > nathaniel
> > http://nathanielstern.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:55:39 +0000
> From:    "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> My tuppence ha'penny worth on the Bishop.
>
> 'Art' (with-a-capital-A) is arguably the product of a particular
> technological regime, that of print, and the printed book, which is also
> that of the framed painting, the proscenium arch in the theatre, the rise
> of the modern autonomous subject, the nation state, the separation of the
> arts, and the emergence of distinct institutions, galleries, concert halls
> etc... in which the arts take place. The 'white cube' is the exemplary
> space of contemporary art, and also paradigmatic of this separation. The
> new media are in effect a new technological regime, in which Art, as it
> understood, no longer fits. The debate that Bishop's essay has started
> seems to revisit some of the questions opened by Derrida in The Postcard
> back in 1980 concerning literature.
>
>
> ". . . an entire epoch of so-called literature, if not all of it, cannot
> survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications (in this
> respect the political regime is secondary). Neither can philosophy, or
> psychoanalysis. Or love letters. . . . Refound here the American student
> with whom we had coffee last Saturday, the one who was looking for a thesis
> subject (comparative literature). I suggested to her something on the
> telephone in the literature of the 20th century (and beyond), starting
> with, for example, the telephone lady in Proust or the figure of the
> American operator, and then asking the question of the effects of the most
> advanced telematics on whatever would still remain of literature. I spoke
> to her about microprocessors and computer terminals, she seemed somewhat
> disgusted. She told me that she still loved literature (me too, I answered
> her, mais si, mais si). Curious to know what she understood by this."
> (Derrida, 1987: 197, 204)
>
> Bishop is a bit like the American student here I think...
>
> J. Hillis Miller suggests that ‘one of Derrida’s main points in The Post
> Card is that it is a feature of the new regime of telecommunications to
> break down the inside/outside dichotomies that presided over the old print
> culture’. He goes on to propose that the ‘postcard stands as a proleptic
> anticipation of the publicity and openness of the new communications
> regimes’.  This new regime involves ‘the breakdown of traditional
> boundaries between inside and outside brought about by new communication
> technologies... the new electronic space, the space of television, cinema,
> telephone, videos, fax, e-mail, hypertext, and the Internet, has profoundly
> altered the economies of the self, the home, the workplace, the university,
> and the nation-state’s politics.’ Hillis Miller claims that these ‘were
> traditionally ordered around the firm boundaries of an inside-outside
> dichotomy, whether those boundaries were the walls between the home’s
> privacy and all the world outside or the borders between the nation-state
> and its neighbours. The new technologies invade the home and the nation.
> They confound all these inside/outside divisions’.
>
> By coincidence 1980 was also the year In 1980  Sherrie Rabinowitz and Kit
> Galloway linked two large live projections of streets in New York and Los
> Angeles in their ‘public communication sculpture’ HOLE-IN-SPACE, which
> might stand for art's movement out of the white cube and into the great
> outdoors.
>
>
>
> Charlie Gere
>
> Professor of Media Theory and History
> Lancaster Institute for Contemporary Arts
> Lancaster University
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:27:45 +0100
> From:    Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> Derrida to the rescue. Very helpful. Petards and hoisting come to mind.
>
> Derrida's postcard has strong echoes of the first generation of "network"
> artists. Here I'm thinking of "mail art", a form popular with artists who
> wished to circumvent both mainstream art and politics during the 1960's and
> 70's. The artist's involved in this activity, like media artists today,
> were dispersed across continents and often between cultures. Derrida could
> have been thinking about such practices when he considered the postcard as
> an early exemplar of the telecommunications revolution and he succinctly
> unpacks the relationship between technology and cultural change. Hole in
> the Wall, one of the first electronically networked "events", also
> evidences this. The public reaction to it was an early example of viral
> media and it went far far beyond the art world.
>
> The implicit argument in Charlie's armour piercing message is that
> mainstream contemporary art is in denial of its own condition as a
> sub-genre of media art.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 16:55, Gere, Charlie wrote:
>
> > My tuppence ha'penny worth on the Bishop.
> >
> > 'Art' (with-a-capital-A) is arguably the product of a particular
> technological regime, that of print, and the printed book, which is also
> that of the framed painting, the proscenium arch in the theatre, the rise
> of the modern autonomous subject, the nation state, the separation of the
> arts, and the emergence of distinct institutions, galleries, concert halls
> etc... in which the arts take place. The 'white cube' is the exemplary
> space of contemporary art, and also paradigmatic of this separation. The
> new media are in effect a new technological regime, in which Art, as it
> understood, no longer fits. The debate that Bishop's essay has started
> seems to revisit some of the questions opened by Derrida in The Postcard
> back in 1980 concerning literature.
> >
> >
> > ". . . an entire epoch of so-called literature, if not all of it, cannot
> survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications (in this
> respect the political regime is secondary). Neither can philosophy, or
> psychoanalysis. Or love letters. . . . Refound here the American student
> with whom we had coffee last Saturday, the one who was looking for a thesis
> subject (comparative literature). I suggested to her something on the
> telephone in the literature of the 20th century (and beyond), starting
> with, for example, the telephone lady in Proust or the figure of the
> American operator, and then asking the question of the effects of the most
> advanced telematics on whatever would still remain of literature. I spoke
> to her about microprocessors and computer terminals, she seemed somewhat
> disgusted. She told me that she still loved literature (me too, I answered
> her, mais si, mais si). Curious to know what she understood by this."
> (Derrida, 1987: 197, 204)
> >
> > Bishop is a bit like the American student here I think...
> >
> > J. Hillis Miller suggests that ‘one of Derrida’s main points in The Post
> Card is that it is a feature of the new regime of telecommunications to
> break down the inside/outside dichotomies that presided over the old print
> culture’. He goes on to propose that the ‘postcard stands as a proleptic
> anticipation of the publicity and openness of the new communications
> regimes’.  This new regime involves ‘the breakdown of traditional
> boundaries between inside and outside brought about by new communication
> technologies... the new electronic space, the space of television, cinema,
> telephone, videos, fax, e-mail, hypertext, and the Internet, has profoundly
> altered the economies of the self, the home, the workplace, the university,
> and the nation-state’s politics.’ Hillis Miller claims that these ‘were
> traditionally ordered around the firm boundaries of an inside-outside
> dichotomy, whether those boundaries were the walls between the home’s
> privacy and all the world outside or the borders between the nation-state
> and its neighbours. The new technologies invade the home and the nation.
> They confound all these inside/outside divisions’.
> >
> > By coincidence 1980 was also the year In 1980  Sherrie Rabinowitz and
> Kit Galloway linked two large live projections of streets in New York and
> Los Angeles in their ‘public communication sculpture’ HOLE-IN-SPACE, which
> might stand for art's movement out of the white cube and into the great
> outdoors.
> >
> >
> >
> > Charlie Gere
> >
> > Professor of Media Theory and History
> > Lancaster Institute for Contemporary Arts
> > Lancaster University
> >
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
> simonbiggsuk
>
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:12:10 +0100
> From:    Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> On 09/04/2012 04:28 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
> > Bishop's essay seems very tautological. It goes something like this:
> > Art recognized as worthy by the mainstream art world (a "world"
> implicitly and vaguely understood by the readers of artForum) is worthy by
> definition.
> > The mainstream art world has not recognized a lot of this work (which
> work? can't say, it's not recognized) as worthy art.
> > So let's take a crack at exploring what's wrong with this work.
>
> It's the just artworld fallacy.
>
> - Rob.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:24:19 +0100
> From:    Paul Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> For me several apposite comments on this theme come from the second
> episode of Robert Hughes classic "The Shock of the New - The Powers That
> Be" from 1980 which coincidentally screened recently on BBC reruns and, for
> those of us lucky (?) to be behind the Great UK Firewall, can be downloaded
> from here:
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074qfm/The_Shock_of_the_New_The_Powers_That_Be/
>
> -- A lovely quote from it by Moholy Nagy:  "Constructivism is the
> socialism of vision".  Love it, love it, love it…
>
> Hughes is discussing art in relationship to political power in the first
> half of the 20th century.  Dada (the left), Futurism (the right) and
> beyond…  Some great insights though those with a pomo bent may disagree!
>
> All best
> Paul
>
> On 04/09/2012, at 5:27 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
> > Derrida to the rescue. Very helpful. Petards and hoisting come to mind.
> >
> > Derrida's postcard has strong echoes of the first generation of
> "network" artists. Here I'm thinking of "mail art", a form popular with
> artists who wished to circumvent both mainstream art and politics during
> the 1960's and 70's. The artist's involved in this activity, like media
> artists today, were dispersed across continents and often between cultures.
> Derrida could have been thinking about such practices when he considered
> the postcard as an early exemplar of the telecommunications revolution and
> he succinctly unpacks the relationship between technology and cultural
> change. Hole in the Wall, one of the first electronically networked
> "events", also evidences this. The public reaction to it was an early
> example of viral media and it went far far beyond the art world.
> >
> > The implicit argument in Charlie's armour piercing message is that
> mainstream contemporary art is in denial of its own condition as a
> sub-genre of media art.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 4 Sep 2012, at 16:55, Gere, Charlie wrote:
> >
> >> My tuppence ha'penny worth on the Bishop.
> >>
> >> 'Art' (with-a-capital-A) is arguably the product of a particular
> technological regime, that of print, and the printed book, which is also
> that of the framed painting, the proscenium arch in the theatre, the rise
> of the modern autonomous subject, the nation state, the separation of the
> arts, and the emergence of distinct institutions, galleries, concert halls
> etc... in which the arts take place. The 'white cube' is the exemplary
> space of contemporary art, and also paradigmatic of this separation. The
> new media are in effect a new technological regime, in which Art, as it
> understood, no longer fits. The debate that Bishop's essay has started
> seems to revisit some of the questions opened by Derrida in The Postcard
> back in 1980 concerning literature.
> >>
> >>
> >> ". . . an entire epoch of so-called literature, if not all of it,
> cannot survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications (in
> this respect the political regime is secondary). Neither can philosophy, or
> psychoanalysis. Or love letters. . . . Refound here the American student
> with whom we had coffee last Saturday, the one who was looking for a thesis
> subject (comparative literature). I suggested to her something on the
> telephone in the literature of the 20th century (and beyond), starting
> with, for example, the telephone lady in Proust or the figure of the
> American operator, and then asking the question of the effects of the most
> advanced telematics on whatever would still remain of literature. I spoke
> to her about microprocessors and computer terminals, she seemed somewhat
> disgusted. She told me that she still loved literature (me too, I answered
> her, mais si, mais si). Curious to know what she understood by this."
> (Derrida, 1987: 197, 204)
> >>
> >> Bishop is a bit like the American student here I think...
> >>
> >> J. Hillis Miller suggests that ‘one of Derrida’s main points in The
> Post Card is that it is a feature of the new regime of telecommunications
> to break down the inside/outside dichotomies that presided over the old
> print culture’. He goes on to propose that the ‘postcard stands as a
> proleptic anticipation of the publicity and openness of the new
> communications regimes’.  This new regime involves ‘the breakdown of
> traditional boundaries between inside and outside brought about by new
> communication technologies... the new electronic space, the space of
> television, cinema, telephone, videos, fax, e-mail, hypertext, and the
> Internet, has profoundly altered the economies of the self, the home, the
> workplace, the university, and the nation-state’s politics.’ Hillis Miller
> claims that these ‘were traditionally ordered around the firm boundaries of
> an inside-outside dichotomy, whether those boundaries were the walls
> between the home’s privacy and all the world outside or the borders between
> the nation-state and its neighbours. The new technologies invade the home
> and the nation. They confound all these inside/outside divisions’.
> >>
> >> By coincidence 1980 was also the year In 1980  Sherrie Rabinowitz and
> Kit Galloway linked two large live projections of streets in New York and
> Los Angeles in their ‘public communication sculpture’ HOLE-IN-SPACE, which
> might stand for art's movement out of the white cube and into the great
> outdoors.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Charlie Gere
> >>
> >> Professor of Media Theory and History
> >> Lancaster Institute for Contemporary Arts
> >> Lancaster University
> >>
> >
> >
> > Simon Biggs
> > [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
> skype: simonbiggsuk
> >
> > [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> > MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> >
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ====
> Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
> http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
> UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
> Skype paul-g-brown
> ====
> Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
> http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
> Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
> http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
> ====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ====
> Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
> http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
> UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
> Skype paul-g-brown
> ====
> Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
> http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
> Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
> http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
> ====
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:40:01 +0100
> From:    Rob Myers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> On 09/04/2012 08:24 PM, Paul Brown wrote:
> > For me several apposite comments on this theme come from the second
> episode of Robert Hughes classic "The Shock of the New - The Powers That
> Be" from 1980 which coincidentally screened recently on BBC reruns and, for
> those of us lucky (?) to be behind the Great UK Firewall, can be downloaded
> from here:
> >
> >
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074qfm/The_Shock_of_the_New_The_Powers_That_Be/
>
> Or:
>
> http://www.ubu.com/film/hughes.html
>
> - Rob.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:22:13 +0100
> From:    Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Claire's Bishop's digital divide piece in Art Forum
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I was criticising some interpreters of PoMo but not PoMo per se. I am
> still keen on the polymorphous and nonlinear understandings of history and
> relations that underpin the PoMo approach. Hughes was a wonderful art
> critic in the popular idiom and, in that sense, is himself a sort of PoMo
> hero - but his views were often reactionary and myopic. The Dada (left)
> Futurism (right) example is appropriate as it was never that simple.
>
> But let's not digress...
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 20:24, Paul Brown wrote:
>
> > For me several apposite comments on this theme come from the second
> episode of Robert Hughes classic "The Shock of the New - The Powers That
> Be" from 1980 which coincidentally screened recently on BBC reruns and, for
> those of us lucky (?) to be behind the Great UK Firewall, can be downloaded
> from here:
> >
> >
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074qfm/The_Shock_of_the_New_The_Powers_That_Be/
> >
> > -- A lovely quote from it by Moholy Nagy:  "Constructivism is the
> socialism of vision".  Love it, love it, love it…
> >
> > Hughes is discussing art in relationship to political power in the first
> half of the 20th century.  Dada (the left), Futurism (the right) and
> beyond…  Some great insights though those with a pomo bent may disagree!
> >
> > All best
> > Paul
> >
> > On 04/09/2012, at 5:27 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:
> >
> >> Derrida to the rescue. Very helpful. Petards and hoisting come to mind.
> >>
> >> Derrida's postcard has strong echoes of the first generation of
> "network" artists. Here I'm thinking of "mail art", a form popular with
> artists who wished to circumvent both mainstream art and politics during
> the 1960's and 70's. The artist's involved in this activity, like media
> artists today, were dispersed across continents and often between cultures.
> Derrida could have been thinking about such practices when he considered
> the postcard as an early exemplar of the telecommunications revolution and
> he succinctly unpacks the relationship between technology and cultural
> change. Hole in the Wall, one of the first electronically networked
> "events", also evidences this. The public reaction to it was an early
> example of viral media and it went far far beyond the art world.
> >>
> >> The implicit argument in Charlie's armour piercing message is that
> mainstream contemporary art is in denial of its own condition as a
> sub-genre of media art.
> >>
> >> best
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4 Sep 2012, at 16:55, Gere, Charlie wrote:
> >>
> >>> My tuppence ha'penny worth on the Bishop.
> >>>
> >>> 'Art' (with-a-capital-A) is arguably the product of a particular
> technological regime, that of print, and the printed book, which is also
> that of the framed painting, the proscenium arch in the theatre, the rise
> of the modern autonomous subject, the nation state, the separation of the
> arts, and the emergence of distinct institutions, galleries, concert halls
> etc... in which the arts take place. The 'white cube' is the exemplary
> space of contemporary art, and also paradigmatic of this separation. The
> new media are in effect a new technological regime, in which Art, as it
> understood, no longer fits. The debate that Bishop's essay has started
> seems to revisit some of the questions opened by Derrida in The Postcard
> back in 1980 concerning literature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ". . . an entire epoch of so-called literature, if not all of it,
> cannot survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications (in
> this respect the political regime is secondary). Neither can philosophy, or
> psychoanalysis. Or love letters. . . . Refound here the American student
> with whom we had coffee last Saturday, the one who was looking for a thesis
> subject (comparative literature). I suggested to her something on the
> telephone in the literature of the 20th century (and beyond), starting
> with, for example, the telephone lady in Proust or the figure of the
> American operator, and then asking the question of the effects of the most
> advanced telematics on whatever would still remain of literature. I spoke
> to her about microprocessors and computer terminals, she seemed somewhat
> disgusted. She told me that she still loved literature (me too, I answered
> her, mais si, mais si). Curious to know what she understood by this."
> (Derrida, 1987: 197, 204)
> >>>
> >>> Bishop is a bit like the American student here I think...
> >>>
> >>> J. Hillis Miller suggests that ‘one of Derrida’s main points in The
> Post Card is that it is a feature of the new regime of telecommunications
> to break down the inside/outside dichotomies that presided over the old
> print culture’. He goes on to propose that the ‘postcard stands as a
> proleptic anticipation of the publicity and openness of the new
> communications regimes’.  This new regime involves ‘the breakdown of
> traditional boundaries between inside and outside brought about by new
> communication technologies... the new electronic space, the space of
> television, cinema, telephone, videos, fax, e-mail, hypertext, and the
> Internet, has profoundly altered the economies of the self, the home, the
> workplace, the university, and the nation-state’s politics.’ Hillis Miller
> claims that these ‘were traditionally ordered around the firm boundaries of
> an inside-outside dichotomy, whether those boundaries were the walls
> between the home’s privacy and all the world outside or the borders between
> the nation-state and its neighbours. The new technologies invade the home
> and the nation. They confound all these inside/outside divisions’.
> >>>
> >>> By coincidence 1980 was also the year In 1980  Sherrie Rabinowitz and
> Kit Galloway linked two large live projections of streets in New York and
> Los Angeles in their ‘public communication sculpture’ HOLE-IN-SPACE, which
> might stand for art's movement out of the white cube and into the great
> outdoors.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Charlie Gere
> >>>
> >>> Professor of Media Theory and History
> >>> Lancaster Institute for Contemporary Arts
> >>> Lancaster University
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Simon Biggs
> >> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
> skype: simonbiggsuk
> >>
> >> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> >> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> >> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> >>
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> >
> > ====
> > Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
> > http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
> > UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
> > Skype paul-g-brown
> > ====
> > Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
> > http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
> > Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
> > http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
> > ====
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ====
> > Paul Brown - based in the UK May to November 2012
> > http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
> > UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
> > Skype paul-g-brown
> > ====
> > Synapse Artist-in-Residence - Deakin University
> > http://www.deakin.edu.au/itri/cisr/projects/hear.php
> > Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
> > http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
> > ====
> >
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
> simonbiggsuk
>
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:23:40 +0100
> From:    Johannes Birringer <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: on curating / curating the planet
>
> wishing to by-pass the unexpectedly late-summer heated debate about an
> artforum article,
> I wonder whether it is too late to remember Ion Ippolito, and also (as Ion
> mentions it as well), the earlier fascinating post by Roger Malina,
> in which Roger proposes to look beyond the "art world" collection
> protocols and gate keepers.
>
> >>I guess one of the things that has annoyed me about the current
> discussion
> ( and steve dietz has tried to turn it away) is its art-centric
> discussion= there are so many people that collect things, so many different
> kinds of museums and the citizen art- science movement is busy
> appropriating the natural world digitally= these are not duchampian found
> objects= every digital appropriation is a act of artistic or scientific
> translation and the boundary between the 'natural' and the 'artificial' is
> good and fuzzy- the nature of art has evolved continuously over the last
> few centuries- surely we need to avoid 'backing into the future' when
> talking about curating new media art
> >>
>
> so well spoken.
>
> I noted that no one answered, and this sometimes
> happens, surprisingly, here.
>
> Ion, i'm sorry i can't say anything concrete about your question about the
> new Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances,
> i have not looked at the details yet and how this affects
> performance/media productions,
> but we did encounter quite a few licence restrictions in the Kafka's Wound
> project that
> I presented here the other week.
>
> I'll try and think this through further.
>
> About your "Ghetto Blasting,"  i think it already touches upon the current
> discussion,
> and I wish to thank Kevin Hamilton for his sharp and humorous commentary.
>
> >> [Kevin schreibt]:
> What remains less questioned in this discussion? The ways in which
> subjectivities are shaped by professions as well as media.
> >>
>
>
> regards
> Johannes Birringer
>
> >>>
> [Ion schreibt]
> * On ghetto blasting
>
> A stuffy Pompidou curator told me that an (even stuffier) art star told
> her he would never be in a show with "media" as a theme. So Steve Dietz is
> right, let's drop "media" as a theme and cozy up to art world insiders,
> hopefully persuading them to shrug off their elitism at the same time.
> (Steve's curated about ten times as many shows as I have, so he should
> know.)
>
> Speaking of the Art World and App Store, I think Steve will appreciate the
> fact that net artist-turned-appmaker Lia's fetching new Sum05 iPhone app
> looks a lot like his 1998 Beyond Interface logo!
>
> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sum05/id544376100?mt=8
> http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw98/beyond_interface
>
> At the same time, I agree with Roger Malina that "curating" is no longer
> the province of art or even museums. I've recently learned this the hard
> way while crafting an online digital curation curriculum to accommodate
> scientists and government officials, not to mention Pinterest peeps and
> Tumblr types. More on this shift in curatorial focus here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/UMaineDigCuration/videos
>
> Roger, I'd love to hear if you have any best-of-breed resources for data
> curation and citizen science.
>
> * On collecting performance
>
> I'd be curious about Johannes Birringer's take on the new Beijing Treaty
> on Audiovisual Performances, which adds a layer of copyright-like
> protection to audiovisual performers (actors, musicians, dancers).
>
> At first I thought this new legal restriction might have a silver lining
> in supporting the precarious life of the performing artist. Unfortunately,
> the EFF looked under the hood and saw that performers' rights can be
> transferred to the producers. Same old same old?
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/beijing-treaty-audiovisual-performances
>
> * On embalming Grampa
>
> I loved Domenico's comment about how best to "preserve" the memory of
> loved ones. Richard Rinehart and I appraise the new market for personal
> data cemetaries in our forthcoming book Re-collection. To me, paying an
> Internet service to archive Facebook posts is like paying the Hindenberg to
> follow the Titanic around in case it sinks.
>
> >>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 3 Sep 2012 to 4 Sep 2012 (#2012-136)
> ***********************************************************************
>



-- 
Julia Kaganskiy
@juliaxgulia <http://www.twitter.com/juliaxgulia>
www.artstechmeetup.com
917.817.8432

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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