This is now a rather fascinating compression, and I agree with Rob Myers, and with what many of you have said / chronicled here on the making of, and discussion of, and building upon
(not to forget the politics often involved, of location, connecting, and access) -- that flow, however, I am still not quite able to accommodate under the term "art history" and surely
many here also share Simon's sensible rejection [ "responses to two questions" ] and disinterest into an 'art world' and art historical & contextualizing discourse that cannot encompass or
engage the full range of what many of us have been doing (not to mention that dance or performance or digital choreographies until recently seemed to matter that much to art history or curatorial discourse,
it may be changing now, cf. J Goebel's "outsider" views and memo from other river banks, yes indeed, music/sonic arts rarely figures in the discursive visual art & visual media histories)...
So Charlotte's discussion points, after the book [two books & meta-thing? still confounded by what Charlotte Frost is crowdsourcing], are still somewhat unclear to me as many of us have not considered the flows to be 'art historical' -- and what about 'art knowledge'?
. what types of art historical, critical and contextual modes does the internet support?
· How have discussion lists changed the way we generate art knowledge?
well, I also strongly agree with Rob that (for me) the maillists are only a small part of the flow and the workshops and networks and collaborations, many of the latter were all done face to face and in real space, and reflections
(theory / writing) not necessarily only were they online or moving there from print culture; one might look at where/how online discourse survives compared to printed books and journals, and whether it will have the same strength of the archival (along with the expanded repertoires of the flows described by Rob).
.....// How do we explain the explosion of postings here these past days? what is at stake?
[Rob Myers schreibt]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] art stories online
On 06/10/13 03:03 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
> Whilst some used the lists for creative practice (Alan Sondheim, Mez,
> Vuk Cosic, Heath Bunting and Alexei Shulgin all did this) others saw
> them as primarily social media - a means for establishing
> professional and personal relationships.
That mailing lists were a site for the making and consumption of art, as
well as discussion of it, is a key aspect of their value. People made
work in ASCII or small image attachments that I find to be of lasting
value. Other people then critiqued or built on them as part of the same
flow of communication, all jumbled in together
Sometimes it was hard to tell which was which. Another example of the
erasure of disciplinary distinctions.