[-empyre-] Re: new media's name - who cares?

im currently working in a media museum where the debate on how exactly to
describe these sorts of media is of part of daily practice.. is that a HTML
web site or is it a just a website? etc..

im going for the general umbrella term and calling it : networked media
ive also seen the term next media used lately
then there's locative media...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Polaine" <a.polaine@unsw.edu.au>
To: <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 5:00 PM
Subject: new media's name - who cares?

> It has been interesting trying to unravel the recent discussion, not
> only in terms of the ideas but also in terms of the language, which has
> become rather opaque and arcane to say the least. There have been times
> when I have felt I had accidentally into a mid-90s hacker forum.
> The term "new media" is obviously problematic, but mostly because of
> its lack of agreed upon meaning than anything else. It has been a
> collective phrase for all sorts of diverse media, modes and
> combinations of technologies. Trying to have a sensible conversation
> about anything in the world without some agreed meanings to words is,
> to say the least, difficult. New Media is a term more widely used in
> Europe and the U.S. than in Australia in my experience. I have
> constantly found difficulties talking about what I do here in
> Australia, far more so than I have in Europe.
> So my question is, does it really matter what new media means as long
> as everyone has a rough idea what you are saying when you say it?
> Using a inexact phrase is still easier than describing the object or
> work in question in complete detail or saying "you know, that thing
> over there."
> The term will resolve into a set of more discreet terms as time
> progresses (and of course it already is starting to - we have words
> such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, and even the Web is beginning to coalesce into
> "genres" such as Blogs, Search Engines, etc.). The moniker "new" is
> almost as pointless as "digital", but not quite yet. It is still a
> useful term for want of anything else to describe something we're
> trying to describe. Of course, a generation from now it will be
> redundant for the media that we now consider new. So what's new?
> The danger with taking this obsession too far is that we risk arguing
> about a name whilst the world as moved on. If we were to apply this to
> cinema, we would be debating the words "film", "projector" or "cinema"
> whilst standing outside the auditorium and missing the experience
> inside.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Polaine
> Senior Lecturer
> School of Media Arts
> College of Fine Arts (COFA)
> The University of New South Wales
> Cnr Oxford Street and Greens Road
> Paddington
> Sydney, NSW 2010
> Australia
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> T   +61 2 9385 0781
> M  +61 413 121 934
> F   +61 2 9385 0719
> http://www.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.polaine.com
> http://www.antirom.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------

This communication contains information which is confidential and the copyright of the Australian Centre for the Moving Image.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not be the views of the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, unless specifically stated.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.