[-empyre-] What women?

[Diana McCarty <diana@b.lab.net>]

Hi Judy,


Thanks for encouraging the dialog. I'd prefer it if you would participate in
the one we might be having. I'm not convinced that adding links to your link
list is the same thing.

For me it was interesting that the book ends with Zoe Sofia's, Contested
Zones: Futurity and Technological Art, (can we post it here?) as this essay
in particular addresses many of the points I'm raising; but it was
originally published in 1996. So it should be clear that I'm not alone in
raising these points, and they are even included in the book. It seems like
they offered a path forward 6-7 years ago, that isn't opted for in this
collection.

It is great for each of the artists presented, and, as I know and respect
much of their work, I'm not commenting on it - rather I am pointing out that
the book as a whole appears to take on some very encompassing themes and
that the final result is heavily biased in favor of American artists.

Of the roughly 43 contributors, about 30 (1-3) are Americans or working in
the US, six are Europeans (and 2 of them are guys!), and 3 Canadians, and 1
Mexican. Nearly all of the artist papers are from Americans. It is
fascinating how the last decades (not to mention the ten years you spent on
the book) of networking and internet can manage to do so little in terms of
transcending geography - which is why I appreciated Isabel bringing up that
point.

I have no idea who the target audience for this book is, but let's take some
young women art students in the US, say in the Art Department of the
University of New Mexico, (where I studied art way back in the day), and
they are interested in working with *new media*, and they want to know what
the women have been doing because they are sure there must be some out there
somewhere. They get their hands on your book. Sure enough, that somewhere
exists, and it turns out that according to you, or Leonardo, or MIT Press,
nearly all of the really relevant work by Women in Art & Technology has been
done right in the good ol, US of A! Is it necessary to explain why this is
problematic?

Finally, I really don't understand how you can equate my making a
distinction between contemporary art and media art with some kind of claim
that "media is not art." There was no such statement in my last posting and
it is difficult for me to see how anybody could interpret that from what I
did write. While the title of the book you edited (and I thought the topic
of discussion) is Women Art & Technology, my problem is that it _does_
address specific women, specific technologies and specific fields of art,
but never makes that explicit.

As you seem to be assuming that I need an education in all of the fields
your book the book is based on, I'd like to assure you that this is not the
case - hence my raising critical points. One of my projects is even in
included in it. Unlike many in this forum, I've actually read the book,  -
it is sitting on my desk - and the questions I've asked stem from having
read these texts. Nothing in your replies even acknowledges these questions,
and as they are not answered between the pages, it looks like I'll have to
live with the mystery.


best,

diana