Hello Jean, All,

The Permanence through Change: The variable media approach
(2003)  http://www.variablemedia.net/
and the Seeing Double: Emulation in Theory and Practice
exhibition in the Guggenheim Museum (2004)
http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=2253
http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=98
were also remarkable Daniel Langlois  projects related to the topic
discussed

nina czegledy


>Hello all,
>
>I have been following this discussion for some 
>time now; it seems that occasionally, this 
>discussion comes up here and there, and we have 
>difficulties remembering what has been done by a 
>lot of people and organisations for some 20 
>years now. Plus, we generally are ill informed 
>of the present-day initiatives and research 
>being done. So, I am grateful to Simon, David, 
>Richard, Christiane, and others for having 
>mentioned some of these past and present 
>initiatives.
>
>As for the Langlois Foundation, for those 
>interested, the archives and the collection are 
>with the Cinémathèque québécoise in Montreal. 
>As for the DOCAM research alliance which has 
>done research on those issues between 2005 and 
>2010, its web site is still there: www.docam.ca 
>. I'd like to mention two recent conferences on 
>the subject, one in Montreal at the Phi Centre: 
>https://phi-centre.com/evenement/memoire-numerique/ 
>; and even more recently in Paris in December, 
>Arts numériques, postérités 
>http://artnumeriqueposterite.labex-arts-h2h.fr/fr/content/colloque-de-cl%C3%B4ture-6-et-7-d%C3%A9cembre-2017 
>.
>
>If you'll pardon me for drawing from my personal 
>experience of recent years, after leaving the 
>Langlois Foundation I became Director of 
>Preservation and Access to collections of the 
>Cinemathèque québécoise. There for many years I 
>had to cope with the advent of Digital Cinema 
>and HD TV, and I had to care for the 
>digitization of part of the film collections and 
>of video art and TV programs. It has been very 
>challenging and interesting, and I learned a lot 
>in the process not only about the technological 
>complexities of digitally encoded works but also 
>about the complexities of the preservation 
>metadata schema (such as METS, PREMIS, and 
>others) that have been developed by large 
>institutions. I also realized how costly this 
>is, expensive and expansive, endless and 
>ever-growing. Now that I am in another position, 
>working with the artist Rafael Lozano Hemmer who 
>has himself reflected on these questions 
>(https://github.com/antimodular/Best-practices-for-conservation-of-media-art), 
>I can say that I relate totally to what David 
>said about the idiosyncratic nature of many new 
>media works. That is something I have stressed 
>all along the DOCAM project, i.e. the fact that 
>we might have to develop methods according to 
>singularities of the works we want to preserve.
>
>Of course, we need to continue researching 
>standards, all encompassing approaches or 
>methods even if, realistically, these will be 
>costly, highly specialised and are still far in 
>the future. And these will only be useful if 
>they are adopted by international bodies or 
>major museums, archives, other memory 
>institutions.
>Meanwhile, I find some sort of comforting 
>tranquility in knowing that in few places, there 
>is careful curation and careful preservation 
>actions that will deal with works that have been 
>judged important and that they may survive in a 
>form or another. Sure, we'll lose a lot; a great 
>deal of the last few decades of digitally born 
>and produced media art works has and will 
>disappear.
>
>Jean Gagnon (PhD)
>Head of Operations, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer Studio
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org 
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la 
>part de Yves Bernard
>Envoyé : 4 janvier 2018 10:39
>À : [log in to unmask]
>Objet : Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Thought on 
>time, temporality and new media public artwork
>
>Hi Anne Sarah, Simon, David and all,
>
>i think Fondation Langlois stopped some years 
>ago (Daniel Langlois cut its funding) and the 
>archives have been transferred after long 
>discussions to some Montreal museum.
>
>yes there are some institutions working on these 
>issues of born-digital artworks preservation and 
>how to present them in the future, just to name 
>a few:
>in Amsterdam: li-ma.nl
>in Brussels: we at iMAL.org are working with 
>Packed.be in our Resurrection Lab 
><http://www.imal.org/en/project/resurrectionlab>
>project based on emulation
>in Basle: HeK,.ch
>in New York: Rhizome.org, see their ongoing Net 
>Art Anthology <https://anthology.rhizome.org/> 
>project And MoMA previous digital conservateur 
>Ben-Fido Radin set up a company around this, see 
>smalldata.industries.
>
>End of 2015, we organised an international 
>symposium on 'Preservation and Access to 
>Born-digital culture" with speakers from main 
>organisations in the field, check the archives 
>on http://www.imal.org/en/preservationsymposium
>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjQCOGgYPYdjR5w3MVwwyq5wxAQWkOJy2
>
>Long term storage, data+software interpretation 
>as well as artworks documentation are 
>complementary aspects of this problem.
>But clearly this is a huge and so much important 
>problem for which there is not enough awareness 
>and not enough funding...
>
>best,
>
>On 19/12/17 21:22, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>  Hi Anne Sarah
>>
>>  Nice to hear from you. Not a stupid question.
>>
>>  ZKM and Langlois are doing some things along 
>>those lines, although I'm not up to date with 
>>where they are at with that. The Media 
>>Archeology Lab (Colorado) is undertaking a 
>>fairly rigorous hardware conservation program, 
>>allied to specific artworks. Here in Australia 
>>the Play It Again project is doing something 
>>similar. IMAL in Brussels is focusing on the 
>>emulation route and Tim Murray has already 
>>outlined the activities at Cornell.
>>
>>  I'm aware that Tate and Stedlijk were working 
>>together on these kinds of activities but that 
>>has been quiet the past few years. Jon Ippolito 
>>(Maine) remains active in this area, of course, 
>>having kicked off the variable media 
>>conservation initiative at the Guggenheim.
>>
>>  I'm not sure if the people involved in these 
>>activities are on Crumb and can provide updates?
>>
>>  best
>>
>>  Simon
>>
>>
>>  Simon Biggs
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>  http://www.littlepig.org.uk
>>  http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs
>>  http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?name=simon.biggs
>>  http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/school-of-art/simon-biggs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>>  On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:14, Anne-Sarah Le Meur<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi every one,
>>>
>>>  May I ask a stupid question ?
>>>  (being myself involved in programmed generative pieces and in the
>>>  process of updating an interactive one)
>>>
>>>  Why is it so difficult to put financial and 
>>>technical means to collect/restore/maintain 
>>>computers and graphical operating systems over 
>>>years, decades... ? Did not ZKM or Fondation 
>>>Langlois .... or other places start to do that 
>>>?
>>>
>>>  a wonderful huge laboratory
>>>  but essential for both technology and technological art histories ?
>>>
>>>  best,
>>>
>>>  Anne-Sarah
>>>  Represented by Galerie Charlot, Paris - Tel Aviv
>>>  http://aslemeur.free.fr
>>>  *********************************************************************
>>>  *****************************
>>>  Forthcoming exhibitions
>>>  * 26.01.2018 - 13.07.2018 : Into the Hollow of Darkness, solo show,
>>>  Le Cube, Issy-les-Moulineaux
>>>  * 22.02 The nice art calculated image, selection of pictorial-organic
>>>  3D animations, Le Cube
>>>  * 27.04 - 02.06 : Sensitive calculated, solo show, Museu
>>>  universitario de arte, Uberlândia, Brasil
>>>  *********************************************************************
>>>  *****************************
>>>
>>>  ----- Mail original -----
>>>  De: "Simon Biggs"<[log in to unmask]>
>>>  À: [log in to unmask]
>>>  Envoyé: Mardi 19 Décembre 2017 07:35:18
>>>  Objet: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Thought on time, temporality and new
>>>  media public artwork
>>>
>>>  I agree with David - almost entirely. I would 
>>>just reiterate that there is a huge difference 
>>>between watching a recording of a performance 
>>>(of dance, or other live art) and experiencing 
>>>it live in all its multi-sensory complexity. 
>>>Watching a recording, if it is very good, I 
>>>get some sense of kinesthetic empathy with the 
>>>performer (as an ex-surfer I get this watching 
>>>a recording of a surfer). But most recordings 
>>>do not transfer that dimension of a work. In 
>>>live situations all the senses are engaged and 
>>>one moves with the dancers - you are also 
>>>performing, you are not watching anymore. 
>>>Empathy is total, at least when it's a good 
>>>performance.
>  >>
>>>  There was an interesting research project on this:
>>>  http://www.watchingdance.org/<http://www.watchingdance.org/>
>>>
>>>  As for a definition of new media art? I 
>>>accept Michael Naimark's definition as it is 
>>>entirely workable and I see no point in 
>>>reinventing the wheel. Quoting from a book 
>>>chapter I wrote a few years ago:
>>>
>>>  Michael Naimark usefully differentiates the 
>>>concepts of 'first word' and 'last word' art. 
>>>He notes that:
>>>  'With first word art, rules and terms are not 
>>>defined whilst last word art is where you work 
>>>within established traditions and known terms. 
>>>First word art is difficult to compare or 
>>>theorise. Haydn was a first word artist in 
>>>developing the symphony. Beethoven's much 
>>>later Ninth blew people away. Paik said if it 
>>>has been done before he is not interested. 
>>>Some artists think novelty and art are 
>>>mutually required. Others that art does not 
>>>really start to get going until an area of 
>>>practice is established (for example, 
>>>Beethoven). Nevertheless, people who work with 
>>>new media are, by definition, first word 
>>>artists.'
>>>  He [Naimark] concludes this argument:
>>>  'In the age of Google there is no excuse for 
>>>not knowing what has gone before. Being 
>>>ignorant of other's prior practice is not good 
>>>enough. It is OK not to be totally innovative 
>>>but if you make work and then claim it is 
>>>novel that is not OK. However, in research 
>>>this is not permissible. In industry you need 
>>>to know that what you are doing is original 
>>>or, at least, not know that there might be 
>>>precursor technology. You need to be able to 
>>>look a patent judge in the eye and say you had 
>>>no knowledge of the prior work.'
>>>
>>>  My understanding of what Michael is arguing 
>>>is that new media art requires, at least in 
>>>part, that the artist is inventing or 
>>>developing novel elements of the work's 
>>>substrate, its media platform. The media 
>>>involved could be anything, including old 
>>>media. But as soon as the artist introduces 
>>>novel elements to that substrate they have 
>>>changed the media involved and it is thus new 
>>>media. As with all art, that doesn't mean it 
>>>is any good.
>>>
>>>  You can read the original text here:
>>>  http://littlepig.org.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf<http://littlepig.o
>>>  rg.uk/texts/practiceresearch.pdf> Published in Smith&  Dean,
>>>  Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice, 
>>>Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
>>>
>>>  But I know other people use the term new 
>>>media art to mean something a bit different. I 
>>>don't want to get into an argument about that 
>>>and am happy with it meaning different things 
>>>to different people.
>>>
>>>  I teach a course called New Media Art. I 
>>>inherited it when I came to my current 
>>>University. It wasn't what I would have 
>>>thought of as a new media art course as it 
>>>didn't involve programming or developing 
>>>electronics or anything else I'd associate 
>>>with new media. It was mostly about using 
>>>Photoshop, a bit of HTML and Final Cut to make 
>>>digital photographic montages or videos. Now 
>>>the course is based on coding (just C#, but as 
>>>a first language for most of the student 
>>>that's OK) in Unity and developing works that 
>>>use sensory input (eg: Kinect) to allow people 
>>>to physically interact with a virtual world 
>>>(using the Rift) composed of generative 
>>>elements. It gets the students up to speed 
>>>with some important concepts, like generative 
>>>media, object oriented programming and 
>>>interactive systems. I should point out that I 
>>>hardly use any of these systems in my own 
>>>work. I do use the Kinect a lot but I find 
>>>Unity very clunky compared to a 
>>>straightforward text based programming 
>>>environment. I do admit though I am using 
>>>Unity to develop some Hololens projects. 
>>>Something should be public about that early 
>>>next year.
>>>
>>>  best
>>>
>>>  Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>  Simon Biggs
>>>  [log in to unmask]
>>>  http://www.littlepig.org.uk
>>>  http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs
>>>  http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?name=simon.biggs
>>>  http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/school-of-art/simon-biggs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>>>  On 19 Dec 2017, at 14:42, David Rokeby<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I am in sympathy with Simon's objections. My 
>>>>wife is a pianist, and in part, our 
>>>>relationship is a collision of cultures. 
>>>>Showing her what the computer can do with 
>>>>music transformed into the question "Why 
>>>>continue performing live?". This was a great, 
>>>>if initially terrifying, exercise for her. In 
>>>>essence it released her from competing with 
>>>>recordings, to reaffirm the importance of 
>>>>performing, but often with a stress on the 
>>>>importance of people listening together, as 
>>>>much as having a live performer performing.
>  >>>
>>>>  Of course improvisation is another thing, 
>>>>and closer in many ways to algorithmic work.
>>>>
>>>>  I do still think there is a significant 
>>>>distinction to be made. Watching or listening 
>>>>to the recording of a musical, dance or 
>>>>theatre performance is still significantly 
>>>>closer to the experience of watching the live 
>>>>performance than watching documentation of an 
>>>>interactive work is to the act of directly 
>>>>experiencing it. One involves the comparison 
>>>>of two different acts of watching. The other 
>>>>is a comparison between an act of watching 
>>>>and an act of performing.
>>>>
>>>>  I concur completely on the idea of new media 
>>>>being defined by being at moving target. We 
>>>>say it perhaps wryly, but it is in a sense 
>>>>part of the beauty of it as well. I am 
>>>>particularly attached to and concerned about 
>>>>the conservation strategies for idiosyncratic 
>>>>media works. Part of what makes new media 
>>>>special is that you can create a functional 
>>>>process that enacts its own expressionŠ like 
>>>>taking McLuhan's 'Medium is Message' as a 
>>>>creative strategy, and inventing 
>>>>idiosyncratic media with expressive intent.
>>>>
>>>>  I think Simon and I are taking a very 
>>>>specific definition of new media here, but it 
>>>>is one that I think is both very important, 
>>>>and perhaps most in danger of disappearing 
>>>>without some sort of conservation strategy.
>>>>
>>>>  I still do think that there are plausible 
>>>>frameworks for the conservation of such 
>>>>works, but that such a framework can only 
>>>>arise out of frank discussions between 
>>>>artists, institutions and commissioners. This 
>>>>abstract framework would have to include an 
>>>>acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each 
>>>>challenge, but I believe, that it is possible 
>>>>to isolate the uniqueness, and reduce the 
>>>>generic aspects to functional descriptions 
>>>>and end up with a scenario that is better 
>>>>than how we have been managing this stuff so 
>>>>far.
>>>>
>>>>  David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>>  On Dec 18, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Simon Biggs<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  David wrote:
>>>>>         
>>>>>>  Also, a recording of a performance of a 
>>>>>>musical composition, while not identical to 
>>>>>>the live performance, is substantially 
>>>>>>similar from an experiential perspective to 
>>>>>>a live performance.
>>>>>>  For Dance and Theatre productions, the 
>>>>>>distinction between performance and 
>>>>>>recording is larger, though most of the 
>>>>>>salient aspects of the live performance 
>>>>>>experience can be gathered from the 
>>>>>>recording. On the other hand, documentation 
>>>>>>of interactive works is often a completely 
>>>>>>different proposition than the live 
>>>>>>experienceŠ not always unsatisfying, and 
>>>>>>often usefully descriptive, but definitely 
>>>>>>incomplete and often missing the raison 
>>>>>>d'être for the work itself.
>>>>>>           
>>>>>  My partner, and often collaborator, is a 
>>>>>dancer and she would argue there is a huge 
>>>>>gap between the performance and its 
>>>>>recording and that the latter could never be 
>>>>>a proxy for the former. Live art has to be 
>>>>>live. For dance the issue of keeping a work 
>>>>>viable beyond it's initial existence is as 
>>>>>big an issue as it is in new media. The work 
>>>>>of people like Motion Bank is evidence of 
>>>>>this. I don't think Scott Delahunta is on 
>>>>>CRUMB (if you are Scott you might want to 
>>>>>chime in here) but whilst he undertakes 
>>>>>really important research into how to 
>>>>>capture, record and re-articulate dance 
>>>>>performance I doubt he would suggest that it 
>>>>>replaces performance in any sense at all. 
>>>>>The technology is there as a means to assist 
>>>>>in the reconstruction of a future 
>>>>>performance of the work, not to replace the 
>>>>>performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Music is more complex. The role of 
>>>>>recording technology has had a huge effect 
>>>>>on music over the past century, with much of 
>>>>>the music we hear today only feasible in a 
>>>>>recorded context, being reliant on studio 
>>>>>engineering to arrive at the final product. 
>>>>>Late Beatles is an early example of this. 
>>>>>Much music we hear today is not born 'live' 
>>>>>but born in the studio; one could say it is 
>>>>>'born digital'. However, some musical forms 
>>>>>continue to be born live, such as improvised 
>>>>>forms (jazz, live coded electronics, etc). 
>>>>>Over the past couple of decades I have come 
>>>>>to find recorded music less and less 
>>>>>satisfying and thus listen to less on the 
>>>>>hifi. But I still go to as many live gigs as 
>>>>>possible that come our way.
>  >>>>
>>>>>  Otherwise, what David writes more or less 
>>>>>hits the nail on the head. New media has a 
>>>>>lot in common with the live arts (especially 
>>>>>performing arts, where the algorithm - the 
>>>>>performance procedure - is live)  but it can 
>>>>>also has a lot in common with installation 
>>>>>and site specific (public) art. I would add 
>>>>>that as new media is, by definition, a 
>>>>>moving target that the kinds of solutions we 
>>>>>require to satisfactorily archive and 
>>>>>sustain work need to be bespoke to the works 
>>>>>themselves. Indeed, you could use such a 
>>>>>framework for determining whether a work is 
>>>>>a new media work by asking the question 
>>>>>'does the work require a bespoke 
>>>>>conservation strategy or can we use one we 
>>>>>made before?'
>>>>>
>>>>>  best
>>>>>
>>>>>  Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Simon Biggs
>>>>>  [log in to unmask]
>>>>>  http://www.littlepig.org.uk
>>>>>  http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs
>>>>>  http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?name=simon.bigg
>>>>>  s http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/school-of-art/simon-biggs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>>  On 19 Dec 2017, at 06:08, David Rokeby<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Re Johannes Goebel's comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>  This in consequence might yield a less 
>>>>>>>"how do I preserve my works for the 
>>>>>>>future" perspective, less of a historic 
>>>>>>>perspective that is derived from culture 
>>>>>>>of "preservation" and "things"  but on 
>>>>>>>that of "tradition of time-based culture". 
>>>>>>>"Preservation" (freezing to stay out of 
>>>>>>>time) might be - for the given reasons - 
>>>>>>>totally against time-based art.
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>  This is the perspective within which I 
>>>>>>created much of my interactive work, but I 
>>>>>>am not sure that it is entirely satisfying. 
>>>>>>There is a difference between traditional 
>>>>>>time-based works and works that are 
>>>>>>supported by the operation of an on-going 
>>>>>>algorithm. Certainly, the software program 
>>>>>>can be compared with some justification to 
>>>>>>a musical scoreŠ the computer and any input 
>>>>>>devices are therefore the 
>>>>>>conductor/director and performers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  But:
>>>>>>  Unlike performers, the computer is, in 
>>>>>>relative terms, extraordinarily tireless 
>>>>>>and patient and the incremental cost to 
>>>>>>perform for a week rather than a day is 
>>>>>>minimal, so continuous performance is 
>>>>>>possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Also, a recording of a performance of a 
>>>>>>musical composition, while not identical to 
>>>>>>the live performance, is substantially 
>>>>>>similar from an experiential perspective to 
>>>>>>a live performance.
>>>>>>  For Dance and Theatre productions, the 
>>>>>>distinction between performance and 
>>>>>>recording is larger, though most of the 
>>>>>>salient aspects of the live performance 
>>>>>>experience can be gathered from the 
>>>>>>recording. On the other hand, documentation 
>>>>>>of interactive works is often a completely 
>>>>>>different proposition than the live 
>>>>>>experienceŠ not always unsatisfying, and 
>>>>>>often usefully descriptive, but definitely 
>>>>>>incomplete and often missing the raison 
>>>>>>d'être for the work itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  These differences alone make a comparison unsatisfying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   From the perspective of temporality, it 
>>>>>>is also lackingŠ To use an example 
>>>>>>relatively specific to the topic at hand, 
>>>>>>public art works are in many cases, viewed 
>>>>>>regularly, sometimes even daily, so in 
>>>>>>addition to a new media public art work 
>>>>>>often being time-based in the common sense, 
>>>>>>also operates through time, allowing for a 
>>>>>>cumulative effects on the public. While we 
>>>>>>are often instructed to remember that the 
>>>>>>average museum goer spends less than 30 
>>>>>>seconds with the average work, when 
>>>>>>considering a public art work, we have the 
>>>>>>opportunity to consider regular repeat 
>>>>>>viewing over a significant period of time. 
>>>>>>Of course in many cases, this duration 
>>>>>>leads to invisibility, it also offers some 
>>>>>>tantalizing possibilities for slowly 
>>>>>>inducing ideas or shifts in perception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Perhaps more significantly, the 
>>>>>>temporality of an interactive work is not 
>>>>>>necessarily one that manifests as an 
>>>>>>unfolding narrative with a relatively 
>>>>>>predictable appropriate viewing period, but 
>>>>>>rather as a modal, experiential state that 
>>>>>>is active and manifest in time, but 
>>>>>>presents as a 'constant' transformation of 
>>>>>>the experience of being in a certain place. 
>>>>>>This is not uniqued to interactive work. 
>>>>>>Architecture and installation can do the 
>>>>>>same thing in different ways, but they are 
>>>>>>a different sort of manifestation than a 
>>>>>>temporal performance.
>  >>>>>
>>>>>>  It does depend on the nature of the work, 
>>>>>>of course, with specific works crossing the 
>>>>>>lines I have roughly drawn here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I do agree that it is interesting 
>>>>>>nonetheless to think about decommissioning 
>>>>>>of public artworks as an integral part of 
>>>>>>the life-cycle of a public work. Some works 
>>>>>>do lose meaning in a shifting context. It 
>>>>>>would be much easier to consider public new 
>>>>>>media artwork commissions of everybody came 
>>>>>>to the table with a very realistic grasp of 
>>>>>>the challenges involved. Many current rules 
>>>>>>and expectations around public art are 
>>>>>>grounded in the expectation that the work 
>>>>>>will endure. There is a larger discussion 
>>>>>>to be had here which is not confined to the 
>>>>>>realm of new media public artŠ the new 
>>>>>>media stuff just adds a bundle of thorny 
>>>>>>technical issues to the existing problems 
>>>>>>around the optimal lifetime of any sort of 
>>>>>>public artwork.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I guess what I am realizing through my own 
>>>>>>ruminations is that, while there are lots 
>>>>>>of reasons to be frustrated by the 
>>>>>>processes and challenges of producing and 
>>>>>>maintaining new media public art (and the 
>>>>>>related challenges of placing complex new 
>>>>>>media artworks in collections), there 
>>>>>>remain really compelling reasons to 
>>>>>>continue to try to come up with frameworks 
>>>>>>for solutions. I am not satisfied with just 
>>>>>>accepting that the work is time-based so I 
>>>>>>should just accept the model of performance 
>>>>>>which manages to make the problems 
>>>>>>disappear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I am concerned that not planning for 
>>>>>>legacy means that only the most mainstream 
>>>>>>media explorations of our time will 
>>>>>>survive. I am tired and harried and not 
>>>>>>getting any younger, but I do think that 
>>>>>>there are things that we can do to give our 
>>>>>>works a better chance of enduring, so that 
>>>>>>those that do manage to remain relevant 
>>>>>>have a chance to be maintained or 
>>>>>>resuscitated or emulated in a way that 
>>>>>>accurately reflects that ideas and 
>>>>>>intuitions that lead to their creation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I am approaching this by daring to think 
>>>>>>in terms of 100 years rather than the 20 
>>>>>>years that has been the norm for me and 
>>>>>>apparently for others. I do this partly as 
>>>>>>a thought experiment, having lived through 
>>>>>>the equivalent of I don't know how many 
>>>>>>generations of technology. It may be an 
>>>>>>entirely quixotic endeavour, but I am not 
>>>>>>ready to give in yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Excuse my ramblingsŠ I don't have answers, 
>>>>>>but I am enjoying the challenges of this 
>>>>>>conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ---------------------------------
>>>>>>  David Rokeby
>>>>>>  135 Manning Avenue
>>>>>>  Toronto, Ontario M6J 2K6 Canada
>>>>>>  (416) 603-4640
>>>>>>  [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>  http://www.davidrokeby.com
>>>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           
>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  David Rokeby
>>>>  135 Manning Avenue
>>>>  Toronto, Ontario M6J 2K6 Canada
>>>>  (416) 603-4640
>>>>  [log in to unmask]
>>>>  http://www.davidrokeby.com
>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>       
>>   
>
>--
>Yves Bernard
>iMAL, Brussels, www.imal.org
>+32 2 410 30 93