Re: [-empyre-] new media's name - who cares?
Andy Polaine wrote:
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
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?
My personal opion (I'm European) is that "new media" is a pretty vague
term. It is overhere mostly used to refer to video art (installations).
Which is in my eyes just "old media".
btw a while back there was quite some discussion on nettime about how to
refer best to new media. Here are some direct links:
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and