critizism-akademic-artist-'new media'
::::::::::::::::::::: forward :::::::: [webartery list] <boundaries>
i have difficulties to get in here - in 'critizism' or 'akademic'
but why?
i think that it is not the boundary thing - per se
boundaries are there and have to be (are necessary)
not only for clearing
or as a polarisated system
in which energy can flow.
the media we are working in/with
have their special character
word (written. read or spoken) , picture (from abstract to naturalistic),
music.
all of these have there history are evolved over thousands of years -
have been interpreted, academiced etc . ppppp
these all is {smile} in our heads/minds (or an idea of it)
not to speak (i just do it)
about the evolved/teached/learnt handling/user habbits.
it is not wrong (in my sight) to use these aspects
for critizism - analyse ....
as it is common/necessary to use it in the process
of creation
(and esp the tension between the differences makes the working
interesting/lively).
my point is quiete simple:
(sorry for my tendency to simplfy;)
when i have an idea - the idea transforms in the process of creation.
when putting a simple content in a form - the content changes (slightly or
.......).
when combining different forms - the expression of every form does change.
................
in a fusion of different media - the amount of transformation
is increased - because the character of the different media SETs
an uncommon constellation.
it might be/is possible (relatively easy) to analyse a single work
created in such a way (but to ³werten" it in a way that is not bound
on the rules/knowledge of the single media - is more difficult).
to elaborate teaching methods - seems to be no problem, too (in my sight).
what creates boundaries is the SETting of rules
not only for analyse or classification
but for creations.
many - like me - (i think) are here (in new media)
because they didn't like 'standards' in the way
that these limit(ate) the liberty of creation .............
r.
