I've not managed to read through all of this very interesting thread, but
has anybody mentioned the Dance and Technology Zone list from Ohio State?
The telematic experiments we did at SIGGRAPH '92 with the Electronic Café
and International Painting Interactive, or any of the early "online"
telematic experiments with tools such as mbone and CU-SeeMe?
There's an archive of the Dance & Tech Zone list from 1995-2002 at:
http://art.net/~dtz/mailarchive.html
Best regards,
Kirk
On 06/10/2013 12:59, "Charlotte Frost" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>My use of the phrase 'art history online' is both a catch-all term and a
>provocation - and I hope I can explain that here as well as in the book
>(more on that in another email, shortly).
>
>As Josephine Bosma points out, it's got several meanings. It's the idea of
>what a history of art(s) that unfolds almost entirely online - in terms of
>art making - might look like, as well as the idea of an art history - in
>terms of a body of contextual materials that help explain the phenomenon
>of online art practice - that unfolds almost entirely online might look
>like. Also, as the weeks pass, I'll be trying to get to the bottom of
>whether there is such a thing as a digital art history (art history is
>place-holder text here) as opposed to a digitised one. So, for example,
>what does it look like when we make and critique art online and does that
>lead to practices of art contextualisation that are distinct to
>previous/traditional methods. Now, I say the term 'art history' is a
>place-holder (and provocation) because net.art, for example, toyed with
>the concept of art history as a body of knowledge and as a practice. I
>come from an art historical back ground but my earliest understanding of
>art history as a discipline was always as something that problematised the
>very concept of an art history (I studied at Leeds with Fred Orton,
>Griselda Pollock and Adrian Rifkin). So I choose the phrase here as a way
>to continue to critique the idea of art history and because I don't know
>what else to call these activities. Already discussion here has
>encountered spaces where art and art discussion were made together and I'm
>looking for how to frame that productively. Can it ever be described as
>the practice of art historicisation or does that entirely miss the point
>of what really goes on? Or worse, does it entirely misrepresent the extant
>contributions to online art making/discussion or historical potential of
>such activities to move way from (possibly outmoded) disciplines like art
>history.
>
>Charlotte
------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Woolford
School of Arts
University of Surrey
|