[NetBehaviour] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "new media meltdown"
james at jwm-art.net
james at jwm-art.net
Fri Jan 12 19:04:59 CET 2007
And to whom is New Media art insignificant?
On 12/1/2007, "aabrahams" <aabrahams at bram.org> wrote:
>Could you name these significant paintings, photos and installations made
>in the last 12 years?
>Opening the doors to self publishing and networked visual expression might
>not have produced great images and text (but that's in for discussion also),
>but it has produced new communication spaces and very significant volatile
>interactions. It is contributing every day to giving people air in a totally
>by economics determined world, that only interacts with them on a customized
>base and accustoms them to being treated as databases.
>Eric, if you want me to take you serious, you should start to give precise
>critics on works you don't think meeting the standards you would like to
>On 1/12/07, dymond at idirect.ca <dymond at idirect.ca> wrote:
>> Why is New Media Art so insignificant?
>> I have been going over the last 12 years of New Media
>> works trying to find a significant work of art and I
>> have come up empty. Not lost however, and that is a positive thing. This
>> failure isn't true of Painting, Photography,
>> Installation Art. Those media have all produced
>> memorable works.
>> Film and Video have flourished as well ( I think that
>> helps explain the flood of videos by new media
>> artists), but the use of new media for visual
>> expression is sadly on the last bench of the stadium.
>> Even the so-called success of electronic literature
>> pales when compared with the interesting work created
>> in the printed media.
>> It doesn't make sense at first.
>> Opening the doors to self publishing and networked
>> visual expression should have produced great images and
>> text by now, but it hasn't.
>> Whats wrong?
>> I think there is a strange attractor act work here.
>> Works that go through the pain and prejudice of the
>> existing mandated mechanisms actually come out the better for it.
>> There is rigor and self-criticism that is sorely
>> lacking in networked publishing and visual expression in *communities*.
>> For me to acknowledge this is blasphemy in many ways.
>> I was an early proponent of the creative commons (see
>> Leonardo, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1998), pp. 297-298).
>> Is a culture important when it concerns
>> itself with determining what works contain quality and depth and operate
>> as a necessary filter to keep out those works that deserve to fail? Well,
>> no more lazy art. No More easy graphics.
>> If New Media wants to grow up, then it has to set some
>> rigorous standards and demand that the work ACTUALLY be
>> culturally significant on a broad scale. Self indulgence is fun, but it's
>> lazy and middling, and stupid.
>> My avatar died last month, send condolences to Dymes Mulberry on Second
>> Life. Eric
>> -> post: list at rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info at rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>..mp3 Archives and photos of Oppera Internettikka - Protection et Sécurité
More information about the NetBehaviour