Re: [-empyre-] new media's name - who cares?

[Peter Luining <email@ctrlaltdel.org>]

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:

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0402/msg00056.html

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0402/msg00060.html

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0402/msg00063.html


Peter