>
I forward a post from the nettime list that generated a lot of
'discourse' in a day. I sent a message to them before to come over to
dao.... but people are actually a bit lazy when it gets down to putting
your 'class' where your 'idea' is. For me, what comes out of 'cleaning
you room' is very satisfying in the end. It leads to the field of
digital art becoming a candidate for grants, programs, digital-nity -
that's digitalDignity, adulthood. It's already that for the informed,
but it isn't that for the 99 percent who are uniformed and support the
arts, sciences, and technologies. (01)
ken. (02)
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:25:46 +0100 (CET)
> From: David Gonzalez <douglasengelbart@yahoo.es>
> Subject: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
> I've got a question seeking some kind of answer please..
>
> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>
> media arts
> new media arts
> digital art
> interactive art
>
> and also sometimes they all get mixed up into the
> art+science+technology area
> as part of it....
> ?
>
> sometimes they are sinonimous, sometimes opposite, sometimes one fit
> inside
> another, following a hierachy as some kind of order... but it seems
> that
> everybody uses them differently..
>
> look at the unesco knowledge portal, even there there is a mess with
> the terms
> as if it was all a disciplinar battle to conquer with its tradition the
> art+science+technology experiences all around the globe..
>
> am i rigth or completely mixed up?
> does anybody know the differences or what is happening?
>
> thanks for all,
> david
>
> (maybe i'm asking simple questions but sometimes simple is harder than
> complex, i guess).
>
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:44:02 +0100
> From: Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2004 um 17:25:46 Uhr (+0100) schrieb David
> Gonzalez:
>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>
> ...because these terms are, in the first case, institutional monikers
> rather than thorough concepts.
>
> On could consider the term "media arts" redundant as there is no art
> without media. On the other hand, it could be narrowed down to art that
> is made to specifically fit a certain medium. Most literature, for
> example, is media-independent and can be disseminated via direct
> speech,
> handwriting, print, sound recordings and digital text files/streams
> alike. Literary works like Francesco Colonna's "Hypnerotomachia
> Poliphili" from 1499 or Sebastian Brant's "Ship of Fools" from 1494,
> which in their typography and composition of text and illustrations
> were
> specifically designed for print, could however be rightfully called
> "media artistic".
>
> But it seems to me that the term "media art" is rarely being used in
> this transhistorical sense, but as a simple abbreviation of "new media
> art". But since a medium is new only in a specific time - so that it
> doesn't make much sense anymore to speak of radio, TV and video as "new
> media" today - one could even argue that the "Hypnerotomachia" and
> the "Ship of Fools" are new media art because they engaged with a
> medium
> that was new at the time of their creation.
>
> The hidden truth between the terms "media" and "new media" is that they
> are largely products of media studies as they were invented by McLuhan.
> As a matter of fact, everything seems to count as "new media" and "new
> media arts" that was conceived as such since McLuhan, although throwing
> TV, radio, video and Internet into one bag rarely makes much
> theoretical
> and practical sense. Assumptions that digital "multimedia" works are
> "interactive" for example only make sense from the media studies
> perspective, if you conceive of the computer as a successor to film,
> radio and television, but don't make any sense if you take
> performance,
> games and theater into account. - So "interactive art" is probably
> shorthand for art, where the interaction between the art work/process
> is realized as human-machine interaction (and should perhaps be more
> precisely called "cybernetical art").
>
> "Digital art" is, in my opinion, the clearest and most useful term of
> the ones you mention, since it means quite precisely that an artwork is
> encoded as digital information (the aesthetical implications of which
> are nontrivial, starting [but not ending] with the identity of original
> and copy). However, the term "digital art" is problematic as it
> seduces
> to falsely identify "digital" with "computer-based". An example of
> digital art in a very literal, but non-electronic and non-computational
> sense is Peter Kubelka's 1959 experimental film "Arnulf Rainer" which
> simply is an edit of single monochrome white and black frames.
>
> I always wonder why the moniker "media arts" got so much more popular
> than the much simpler and clearer term "electronic arts", but I guess
> it
> has to do with McLuhan's discursive legacy.
>
> - - -F
>
> - - --
> http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~cantsin/
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:33:22 +0100
> From: "porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>
> dont know at all except i sent a reply befor to another question to
> nettime
> about 'are we all just neatart' & replied i prefer one call me
> asshole, this
> for doing it short..in 'comprehension' as said mathematician cause in
> ascii
> extension this reply set didnt go through, even in bulk, cause of
> course in
> long i would be never so rude, it's question of art & right now i
> perform an
> answer to your question yet, first i would say you cant be too
> carefull bout
> qualificative that qualify art, it's kind of diversionary move for
> discreditiong the fact it couldnt exist pork butcher art, then it
> exist for
> century but when i bough a so nice chitterling saussage to my butcher
> & she
> ask how it was (my butcher is a female one) i replied 'it was a
> marvel, it's
> simple, it was art' & she smile of contentment for my gratitude & we
> share
> hapiness resulting from having same art understanding but imagine a
> second i
> said 'it was butcher art!'..but i make it too long & you ask your
> question
> to 'nettime', scuz i let them to reply
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:09:44 +0000
> From: Ian Dickson <ian@iand.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
> In message <200402200615.i1K6FMr26392@bbs.thing.net>, David Gonzalez
> <douglasengelbart@yahoo.es> writes
>> I've got a question seeking some kind of answer please..
>>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>>
> Because language evolves, and everyone use words to mean what they want
> them to mean, especially when meanings are not settled.
>
> Meanings only settle through competitive use....
>
> Not mention the fact that some people use language, and appropriation
> of
> language, as a way of displaying their actual or desired status.
>
> All part of life's rich tapestry:-)
> - - --
> ian dickson www.commkit.com
> phone +44 (0) 1452 862637 fax +44 (0) 1452 862670
> PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England
>
> "for building communities that work"
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:16:03 -0000
> From: "Regina Gleeson" <reginagleeson@eircom.net>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
> In response to David's question, the lack of clarity in the
> categorisation
> of contemporary art practices and production is a reflection of the
> diversity of media being used and their infinite manipulations. There
> is
> such a confusion of categorical terms because there is such a huge
> engagement in cross-disciplinary research and production. As with all
> art
> movements, clearly defined categories are only truly seen when the
> growth of
> the movement has slow down.
>
> The tautological first term on your list "media art" describes very
> little.
> Anything from Titian's Worship of Venus to Jenny Holzer's Truisms can
> be
> described as media art. However the term was generally used to refer
> to art
> that had some kind of technological input along the way.
>
> The term "new media art" originated when audio and screen based work
> entered
> the art gallery. It would appear to be out-dated now as none of the
> media
> referred to in a "new media art" exhibition is actually new.
> Never-the-less
> the term is still used, for convenience sake, in referring to the use
> of
> digital devices and technological information in the production of
> art. It's
> interesting to remember that what we refer to in art terms as
> "modern", has
> nothing to do with anything that is produced in the present or
> immediate
> past.
>
> Then to the term "digital art". This would seem to be a straightforward
> description of art created with the use of some digital process but it
> becomes cloudy when the digitisation took place in the preparatory
> stages
> and is neither visible nor perceptible in the artwork.
>
> "Interactive art" could aptly describe non-technological sculptural
> installations but is mostly used in reference to art that has
> incorporated
> a pre-defined series of interactions through which the user can
> explore the
> work and who uses a technological device to do so.
>
> There are a plethora of descriptive terms for art that use a mixture of
> media (in the true sense of the word) and artwork that uses
> digitisation
> but, it frequently happens that the most interesting work does not fit
> into
> a single, neat category. One man's categorical hierarchy is another
> man's
> disciplinary fallacy; if we hang around for a decade or two, we will
> find
> out exactly what to call what we are doing now!
>
> I hope this goes some way to answering your question David,
>
> Regards,
>
> Regina.
>
>
>
>
> From: "David Gonzalez" <douglasengelbart@yahoo.es>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:25 PM
>
>
>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>>
> (03)
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 04:51:09 -0800
> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> Subject: RE: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
>> I've got a question seeking some kind of answer please..
>>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>>
>> and also sometimes they all get mixed up into the
>> art+science+technology area
>> as part of it....
>> ?
>
> Yes, I agree that formerly these problems existed. But I am happy to
> inform
> you that it has all recently been cleared up by a Canada Council For
> the
> Arts jury, at least in Canada. The 'New Media' section of the Canada
> Council's 'Media Arts' section recently awarded nine grants to
> Canadian 'new
> media' artists. There were 85 applications from around the country.
> Seven of
> nine of the recipients are from Montréal. $219k of $285k went to
> Montréal.
>
> It used to be that there occassionally arose discussion around the
> globe
> over whether 'new media' necessarily involved the use of the computer
> or
> what. But it turns out this is unimportant. The important thing, in
> Canada,
> in any case, is whether or not the artist is from Montréal. This makes
> things much simpler and I'm sure it will come as a happy and welcome
> solution to many testy problems. The beauty of it is you can ask as
> many
> questions as you like about 'new media' art and they all become
> amenable to
> simple answers. Is the artist from Montréal? If we keep this question
> in
> mind, we encounter little confusion.
>
> Of course I was at first dubious of such a far-reaching critical
> principle,
> but I phoned the Canada Council about this matter and they assure me
> that
> the jury was not made up of Montréalers but was comprised of five
> excellent
> new media artists from around the country and that the selection was
> made
> solely on the basis of quality.
>
> So there you have it.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:01:50 -0500
> From: chris mann <chrisman@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
>
>> does anybody know why there's such a mess with the terms
>>
>> media arts
>> new media arts
>> digital art
>> interactive art
>
> a fetish of avoidance therapy. as though the user was other than a
> site of
> intelligence.
>
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:06:48 -0500
> From: Ken Jordan <ken@kenjordan.tv>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime - caught typo
>
> Sorry - Caught a typo. The following paragraph should read:
>
> * Digital art: work of any new or legacy discipline (including image
> creation, music making, etc) involving digitized material that
> consciously
> focuses on the use of a computer in the creation of the artwork,
> making the
> computer's involvement part of the "statement" of artwork (for this
> reason,
> Timbaland productions are not usually regarded as digital art, while
> mash-ups that use Timbaland material sometimes are).
>
>
> Also, for the record, the definition of "multimedia" that we used in
> our
> book had five core characteristics:
> * integration
> * interactivity
> * hypermedia
> * immersion
> * narrativity
>
> best,
>
> Ken
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:29:33 +0100 (CET)
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?David=20Gonzalez?= <douglasengelbart@yahoo.es>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
>
> many thanks for your answers!
>
>> ...because these terms are, in the first case,
>> institutional monikers
>> rather than thorough concepts.
>
> ok but i'm worried because this institutional monikers
> tend to constrict our thougth....and solidifies art
> practice as if it were an "object" rather than a
> "process"
>
> and I see so much exhibitions with this mess going
> around...
>
>> On could consider the term "media arts" redundant as
>> there is no art
>> without media.
>
> first we would have to say that all form of
> communication has a media (but I think it's different
> if we say that "IS a Media") and that all art form is
> also a form of communication...??
>
> so then we should say that all art is communication
> and therefore it needs a media....am i rigth?
>
> is there any possibility to express yourself without
> the intention of communicate with the other? could
> this be also an art form?
>
> Do all artworks seek communication? Even when they
> clearly destruct the code and create "its own code"?
>
>> Assumptions that digital
>> "multimedia" works are
>> "interactive" for example only make sense from the
>> media studies
>> perspective, if you conceive of the computer as a
>> successor to film,
>> radio and television, but don't make any sense if
>> you take performance,
>> games and theater into account.
>
> ok so we have "New Media Arts" versus "Digital Arts".
>
> The first one comes from the Media Studies following
> McLuhan legacy.... And they look at the computer as
> the succesor of video and cinema? But there is nothing
> in common except that the computer uses a tv monitor
> to see the data!
>
> However, the term "digital art" is
>> problematic as it seduces
>> to falsely identify "digital" with "computer-based".
>> An example of
>> digital art in a very literal, but non-electronic
>> and non-computational
>> sense is Peter Kubelka's 1959 experimental film
>> "Arnulf Rainer" which
>> simply is an edit of single monochrome white and
>> black frames.
>
> I don't get it, all digital is electronical, but not
> all electronical is digital...and what about the
> mechanical?. But I cannot understand the digital
> without the electronical and the computer!
>
> Maybe you mean that "digital" is any kind of numerical
> binary system...
>
>> I always wonder why the moniker "media arts" got so
>> much more popular
>> than the much simpler and clearer term "electronic
>> arts", but I guess it
>> has to do with McLuhan's discursive legacy.
>
> Anyway what about artforms many times included under
> this terms as the ones that are exploring
> biotechnology, nanotechnology, space arts, biology,
> robotics, artifical life with such a mess with the
> sciences, technologies and discourse from art history,
> media studies and so on involved in their
> construction??????
>
> For example the Autopoiesis artwork by Ken Rinaldo is
> it a just new media art?
> is it just digital art?
> is it just interactive art?
>
> ...it uses mechanical robotic arms, artificial life,
> artificial intelligence and therefore also a network
> of computers
> evolving in interaction with "users"...how do we call
> it?
> is it a digito-electronico-mechanical art installation
> that inteds to be interactive and evolves through the
> user action?
>
> do we need an ontology of "new media arts"?
> do we need an ontology of Technologies and Sciences?
>
> clearly at least I need a map....(ready to destroy
> when something "new" appears)
>
> best,
> david
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS
> Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más...
> http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
> - ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:00:37 +0100 (CET)
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?David=20Gonzalez?= <douglasengelbart@yahoo.es>
> Subject: Re: <nettime> questions to nettime
>
> many thanks for your quick answer!!!
>
>> Clearly, these terms are used interchangeably, and
>> few people care that they
>> might mean different things. Still, from what I've
>> seen, here's how they
>> tend to be used (tho there are many exceptions):
>
> Great! the meaning comes from the uses made...(but i
> think there's an underground battle going around in
> order to conquer this "artforms" and put them inside a
> "tradition", as if they were a "logical consequence"
> with a "origin" clearly defined....)
>
>>
>> * New media arts: a catch-all phrase for anything
>> demonstratively "arty"
>> that involves video, audio, or computers.
>
> so this means new media arts includes also both
> digital arts and media arts...
>
> but an artwork based on artifical life technologies
> and life sciences, as for example some of the
> Sommerer/Mignonneau what do they have in common with
> the Media?
>
>
>> * Digital art: work of any new or legacy discipline
>> (including image
>> creation, music making, etc) involving digitized
>> material that consciously
>> focuses on the use of a computer in the creation of
>> the artwork, making the
>> computer's involvement of the "statement" of artwork
>> (for this reason,
>> Timbaland productions are not usually regarded as
>> digital art, while
>> mash-ups that use Timbaland material sometimes are).
>
> Yeah but is it the computer the center of this art
> forms? Maybe now...but as the other sciences (for
> example cognitive sciences, biology etc) and
> technologies (nanotech? etc) change completely the
> computer sciences and become the center of the artwork
> should we still call it digital art?? is it the
> digital the focus?
>
>
>> For our anthology, Multimedia: From Wagner to
>> Virtual Reality, Randall
>> Packer and I wrestled with the various terms being
>> used, and settled on
>> "multimedia". We discuss why in the book's
>> introduction. The idea was to
>> focus attention on the aspects of personal
>> expression unique to
>> computer-based media -- the things that pre-digital
>> media didn't encourage
>> or enable.
>
> And it's a great book that I enjoyed so much (thanks!)
> but i still thinking why you entittled your book
> MULTIMEDIA instead of NEW MEDIA...There is a book
> called "The New Media Reader" recently published with
> almost the same selection of authors as you did in
> 2001.
>
> What bothers me is that behind a particular term there
> is a whole universe or discourse arising and making
> able some "neural connections" and making unable
> others but with so much "possibles" floating around
> waiting to lay on and evolve into new thougths and art
> works/process...
>
> best
> david (04)
Powered by MessageSoft SMG
SPAM, virus-free and secure email
http://www.messagesoft.com (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://dao.cim3.net/forum/dao-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://dao.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/dao-forum/
Shared Files: http://dao.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://dao.cim3.net/wiki/
Community Portal: http://dao.cim3.net/
To Post: mailto:dao-forum@dao.cim3.net (06)
|