Re: Forward from Christiane Paul: RE: [-empyre-] reply to Ben Bogart

["Christiane Robbins @ Jetztzeit" <cpr@mindspring.com>]

I'm not at all sure if we ( you, Pall,  and I ) are addressing the same issues in this email exchange, as it appears somewhat slippery.

What does strike me in this exchange and the subsequent on-line discussion is that there is seemingly an absence in your emails ( below and another recent one re: database ) of a referent to anything beyond formal considerations of materiality/technicality.  This, of course, speaks to a modernist position - relative to late 20c art history/critical theoretical positions.

And, quite obviously, I am/have been restricting my comments only the specificity of a late 20c visual art/media trajectories - not the entirety of the 20c complex of notions of modernity.... which is way, way beyond my level of expertise!

In any case, thanks for the exchange -

Chris





-----Original Message-----
>From: Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is>
>Sent: Mar 8, 2006 2:52 PM
>To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: Forward from Christiane Paul: RE: [-empyre-] reply to Ben Bogart
>
>
>On 7.3.2006, at 23:19, Robbins @ Jetztzeit wrote:
>> Quickly the point I'd like to suggest in response to Christiane's  
>> statement below is in regard to the often levied criticism that  
>> "New media art is all about technology."  Unfortunately,  I believe  
>> this is more often the case than not.  However, painting is not  
>> simply about painting as such ( materially and technically speaking.)
>
>I would say that this comment is well addressed by Christiane here:
>
>> If an art recipient / museum visitor is unfamiliar with a specific  
>> technology or interface, it will automatically move to the  
>> foreground and become the focus of attention -- which very often is  
>> completely unintended by the artist. For the expert audience, on  
>> the other hand, the technology tends to be transparent, it moves to  
>> the background and becomes mostly a vehicle for content.  
>> Unfortunately, this problem of focus and perception cannot easily  
>> be solved.
>
>This holds true for everything. Not just technology based art. If I  
>knew nothing about painting, I could easily assert the claim that  
>painting is about the technology behind painting. In the same way, I  
>would say that heavy-metal is about screaming guitar solos and  
>classical music is about the orchestra. But just to take things a  
>little further, I would argue that there's a lot of new media art  
>(generative and data visualization), that is in fact painting. I'd be  
>interested in hearing about some samples of well-recognized new media  
>work that is only about the technology.
>
>Pall
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
>palli@pallit.lhi.is
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>empyre forum
>empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>http://www.subtle.net/empyre

                      JETZTZEIT 
" ... the space between zero and one ... "
                 Walter Benjamin






        Los Angeles _ San Francisco
                     California