Re: [-empyre-] Is it digital art?

[ICOLS DIRECTORS <icols@va.com.au>]

this is a boring old argument. It used to be (and still is) applied to painting
in the UK(and probably elsewhere) , ie. a painting has to on one level address
and acknowledge the language of painting or it is by default not interesting.
When I began to come across this position in the new media world it made me
just as annoyed. Look, I can see where this argument has come from (so please
people out there don't start sending out lectures on Mcluhan, any postmodernist
theorist or anyone else) but as it's taken up by later generations it often
becomes fascist and fundamentalist and is often perpetuated by people with
nothing much to say for themselves bar dogma and fear of anything getting
through the cracks.
And for the record, when I left the UK in 1992 the whole art world scorned
digital anything and wrote it off as bollocks, so now they're the authority eh?

Suzy

geniwate wrote:

> Hi,
>
> had this conversation in uk recently ... the exchange went something like:
>
> - if the artwork doesn't somehow respond to the medium then it's not truly
> digital work.
> - therefore something that is just a narrative, with images, is 'bad'
> digital art (for example).
> - what would digital art that is purely responding to the medium look like?
> - perhaps nothing at all: perhaps no concession to the (human) user would be
> made; there would be no GUI or sensual ramifications, only some code doing
> invisible things at the level of cpu cycles....
> - and so digital art swallows itself ...
>
> cheers, geniwate

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Suzanne Treister
Director
ICOLS
International Corporation of Lost Structures
http://www.icols.org