Re: [-empyre-] pieces of history

[Steve Dietz <stevedietz@yproductions.com>]

Hi all,
Great discussion. I know I'm a week late with a response to Simon, but it's
been gnawing at me, and I think it relates to ongoing discussion about new
media qua field/discipline.

Simon wrote:

> Rather than focus on individual works, which just plays into the hands of
> those who seek to comodify art through reification of the object, it might
> be more productive to look at processes, practices and methodologies that
> have been established, whether individually or collectively, which have come
> to be influential. In this instance individual works can then be seen as
> illustrative rather than as paradigmatic.

Often when I give a talk to a general audience, or even more unfailingly to
an arts audience, the first question I'm asked--and I'm sure this is true
for many on this list--is along the lines of "who are the (2 or 3) _really_
good net/digital/new media artists?" I demur for a variety of reasons,
especially the transparency of the question, which is a request not to have
to actually look.

Nevertheless, I think there is a great deal of value in focusing on
individual works. This is not an issue of commodification; it is an issue of
creating theory from practice and not vice versa. I also think that treating
works as (purely) illustrative does them a dis-service. I do agree that
focusing on a limited number of artists or types of practice is extremely
problematic.

I think this has some rammifications for the issue of field/discipline:

Nick wrote:

> The field that I'm part of, new media, is a discipline being developed by
> artists, theorists, scientists, and engineers, among others. If you'd
> prefer that the new discipline not exist, or would like to call it a
> filter or category and not allow it to be considered as a discipline, a
> way of thinking, then you're putting yourself on the sidelines of this new
> field -- I'm not doing that to you -- and you are no doubt situating
> yourself somewhere within another field. I wish you luck in it.

My general response about the issue of how unsatisfactory "new media" is as
a term is that it's not the term that matters. The important question is
what's at stake. Nick suggests very directly what's at stake in academia,
(although I suspect that if you did a survey of the kinds of programs he is
referencing more than 50% would not be titled new media programs).

In the institutional art world, at least/especially in the United States,
new media has not established itself as a field, really. The rammifications
are not perfectly clear. For instance, many museums that embrace photography
do not have a department of photography. In theory, a contemporary art
center could be supportive of new media as a discipline without having a
separate department.

I guess my question is that new media art--whatever you call it--is
well-established in the art schools and universities but not so in the
institutional art world. Is this a time lag? A sign of a coming museum
extinction? Railing against the inevitable assimilation into a generic field
of art? Self-ghettoization? An expansion of the definition of art? Something
else?

steve dietz

On 1/6/04 3:04 PM, "Simon Biggs" <simon@littlepig.org.uk> wrote:

> On 06.01.04 18:41, "noah wardrip-fruin" <noah@queeg.com> wrote:
> 
>> If I might pose a question, I'd be interested to know what work from
>> the history of new media (however we define the term) empyre folks
>> have found particularly important - perhaps as you came into the
>> field, or in a later stage of your work.
>> 
>> Noah
> -----
> There are numerous works across many different new media that are important.
> To try to argue for just a few is only to discount the value of so many
> other equally worthwhile contributions.
> 
> Rather than focus on individual works, which just plays into the hands of
> those who seek to comodify art through reification of the object, it might
> be more productive to look at processes, practices and methodologies that
> have been established, whether individually or collectively, which have come
> to be influential. In this instance individual works can then be seen as
> illustrative rather than as paradigmatic.
> 
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> Simon Biggs
> simon@littlepig.org.uk
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> 
> Research Professor
> Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
> 
> Senior Research Fellow
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 

-- 
Steve Dietz
stevedietz@yproductions.com