[NetBehaviour] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "new media meltdown"

[ricardo ruiz]

to me!

:)

On Friday 12 January 2007 15:04, james at jwm-art.net wrote:
> And to whom is New Media art insignificant?
>
> On 12/1/2007, "aabrahams" <aabrahams at bram.org> wrote:
> >dear Eric
> >
> >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
> >use.
> >
> >yours Annie
> >
> >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.
> >> Why?
> >> 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 online.
> >http://www.intima.org/oppera/oips/index.html
> >http://bram.org/info/oips/
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

-- 
"se voce jah sabe quem vendeu aquela bomba pro iraque, desembuche.
eu desconfio que foi o bush..."