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 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?

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 MHonArc 2.6.8.