What are mainstream media?I don't know, information channels that are seen as more authoritative because widespread and reaching general people and are not specifically targeted to a type of specialism..you tell me what we are talking about here. ;-)
I like James Bridle article. It gives a broad and picture of the filed, with interesting examples, for all. Perhaps reinstating what has already been written over and over, but it's good that someone keeps on banging on things.
The conclusive sentence:
"It also points towards the fact that "the digital" is not a medium, but a context, in which new social, political and artistic forms arise. After 50 years, at least, of digital practice, institutions are still trying to work out its relevance, and how to display and communicate it – a marker, perhaps, that it is indeed a form of art."
Resonates with the position of Charlie Gere in Digital Culture (2002, expanded in 2008) where he raises similar concerns, the relationship of digital technology to 2nd World War technological inventions, the raise of "informational needs of capitalism and its drive to abstraction" as well the problems of the rate of which changes – which always occur in history - take place.
It's an important book I think, especially in relation to the show that will soon open at Barbican, and all of the 'literature' that will be written about it.
As for the rest:
I am concerned too with "invisibility" of excellent work, mainly, in my case, of curatorial work online for example. I think we should care about what's been written and where because that is, very often, how history is written out.
I think you have been writing tenaciously the history of Furtherfield, practically with your projects and in actual writing, so I'd say that you have been bringing 'localism' to the limelight, somehow.
I am very interested in the "net.art Painters and Poets" exhibition you mentions. Have you visited it? Do you have more information? There's not much I can find out on the website..
I am writing up my PhD (so I should not even write in here!) but I just wanted to say, going back to this idea of " internet art takes place in the suburb", that I am interviewing curators that have devised new exhibition structures, encompassing online and offline sites and modes of production. Some projects are not even browsable anymore even if done less than 10 years ago. And I feel that this is bringing out so many interesting positions that would not necessarily come to light if these people were not practitioners. Each of them has developed a language to deal with online, digital, offline, and the tautologies and unnecessary distinctions that might exist in there.
So, I would be interested in interviewing some of you too - when writing up is over - thus: hit me if you're interested and your work applies to this field.
All the best,
PhD Reseacher at CRUMB
University of Sunderland
m. +44(0)7816 483221
On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien wrote:
> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while
> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has mentioned:
> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this
> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that
> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream
> media published on the same day (I think...).
> as ever
> very best
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream
>> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without
>> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it
>> invisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate
>> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about
>> digital art.
>> h : )
>> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:
>>> Dear Sarah and everyone,
>>> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a
>>> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous
>>> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important
>>> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in
>>> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and
>>> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.
>>> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so
>>> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an
>>> I am doing some research on these controversies and "blind spots" and I
>>> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by
>>> these articles and how does it make you feel?
>>> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give
>>> it some thought.
>>> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!
>>> Pau Waelder Laso
>>> Art critic, curator and researcher
>>> email: [log in to unmask]
>>> site: www.pauwaelder.com
>>> skype: pauwaelder
>> helen varley jamieson
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Nicholas O'Brien
> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director
> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute