Hi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the messages to the list out of order, or am I?

My quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field (from which PhD students draw too!).


On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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]
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


Dr. Sarah Cook
Reader / Dundee Fellow
Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design
University of Dundee
13 Perth Road DD1 4HT

phone: 01382 385247
email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096