Al Thanks very much for introducing me John Latham. Never heard of him. But for anyone to assume I had, given that there are 23,000 practising artists in the UK, and god knows how many dead ones, is a bit 'parelliptical'. Needless to say a good arts festival would have communicators trained not to do this (or use words like parelliptical). We've all been in that situation where you're made to feel intellectually subnormal, or geneticaly ill-fated, because you haven't seen Geilgud's 'Dream or whatever. This behaviour drives people away from art, as much as it does from science.
But he sounds like a prime candidate for a whole talk, or to include in a talk. Whether or not he is the most important etc. is I think probably a quirk of art history and art critisism but I will look him up. Unfortunately I can't read Variant without thinking of Doris Lessings' "Unexamined Mental Attitudes Left Behind By Communism", so I'll have to give it a miss unless she opens one of her Hospitals for Rhetorical Diseases in Edinburgh. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Variant - and its rivals, they're very important. A media festival would cater for this kind of material in some of its events too, stuff akin to the non-syposium in Dundee last year. The high-level would have to be well indicated in the programme. But I wouldn't go. I'm from a different sub audience. What I was suggesting I guess is that some models from the Science Festival may (or may not) be transferable. When Higgs (probably one of the most important... etc.) talks about there being nothing before the big bang, that the nothing was filled with fields of potential, that there were 37 of these, and that the big-bang happened because 'something went wrong with the nothing' then surely you'd switch off. But when the actor Ken Cambell was there to say 'you're talking bollocks mate', and then mediate this arcane stuff in a more appealing way, you feel enlightened not bored. (Incedentally, Ken has a parrot trained to say " I'm a parrot, what are you?") A lot of scientists object to this approach, and insist that their work speaks for itself, and doesn't need interpretation. I see their point, that's how I feel about my own work, but I recognise that its hard for people outside of Cavan's cabinet noir to get it. I try not to change what I do, or comprimise my self-expression too much for an audience - that's design, not art - but I don't mind when Martin Kemp makes a better job of describing what I do than I can (once I've finished, mind). We've all sat through screening after screening of important and worthy work - it's sometimes exhausting, and even the most hard core cravers of art can feel our lobes trickle out of our ears after three or four days at these events. Then when someone tells me I'm looking at an inelluctable exploration of the pandiculary - Nrrrrrg! It shouldn't be an endurance test. A little bit of variety, accesibility and entertainment in the mix creates a bit of rythym, and makes a festival more stimulating. The Science Festival supports a number of parties, breakfasts and sponsors evenings so that all these different people can connect with each other in between shows. Maybe new media art is far more difficult to explain than science so maybe I'm totally wrong. I just really believe you can pack a room with 200 diffferent people night after night for talks, screenings, workshops and exhibitions, with new media work. But maybe its funding, political rationing as Leigh says - I'd like to hear more on that. So I'll shuttup and listen. Thanking you Cavan ------------------------------------------------- a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "info ambit" in the message body -------------------------------------------------
