No-one seems to like the 'new media' tag. I'm ambivalent about it too, but was wondering what other people felt. Is it because a lot of us here are working in a broad variety of media, so shoehorning everything we do under this blanket term would be inaccurate as well as frustrating?
Is it really because its not new anymore. Its probably correct to say its a sort of historical term now. Its probably not even new to say its not so new. But it was a godsend ten or fifteen years ago when we had to photo our 'interactives' off the 'VDU' (there were no colour printers!), frame it and stick it on a wall before it was accepted. It might be useful for commentators who are trying to identify trends or developments in art since computers became accessible. I think historians look for that point where artists using a new platform stop making work about the platform itself, and this indicates a 'maturity in the medium'. It was very obvious with video art in the eighties, apparently. I don't think it matters. I'm not a social realist, so the art can be about something, or it can just be about itself. Personally, I still think its a useful definition when used in the provision of arts facilities and funding. You can see why the Sculpture Workshop in Edinburgh has places for sculptors only - the space, heavy lifting gear, welding & casting etc. - what's required is obviously different from that of painters or printmakers. To get a studio you have to demonstrate that your work is largely 3-d. The sculpture label might become a 'prescription' if your work took you in a different direction and you found yourself out of a space ;-) Presenting and creating new media work needs a particular set of resources and expertise too, so its clearly practical and convenient to associate artists. But shouldn't they ideally be shown according to content, style, aesthetics, etc.? I bet there are other equally prescriptive labels, like an exhibition of artists from a certain country or culture, or perhaps of a certain age or 'newness'. I think the new media label is a still a flag of convenience for me. Although many of the things I want to do are possible because of computers, I don't always want a computer in evidence, and doesn't 'new media' to people somehow involve a screen? But a couple of projects I'm working on now were conceived to be web-based, so its been really useful 'stratgically' for me to hang on to the term 'digital artist'. It means I can work with people who are instantly familiar with the forms, equipment and human interfaces I need without me having to explain things all the time. The 'sciart' label has worked for me too, with the majority of my projects being funded by science funders in recent years. Complaints that my schools workshops are too 'arty' for the science teachers or too 'sciencey' for art teachers clearly show that labels are frustrating and prescriptive. Then suddenly someone comes along with this new label that suits your particular type of activity and you're flavour of the month at last. Suddenly you stop having to justify what you're doing every step of the way. But am I waiting for new labels when I should instead use no label? God what a boring question. Sorry. Anyrail, despite the soap powder association, new media suits me well. The great thing about working with not-so-new-media is that all of my ideas are slightly passe anyway. Ambit - tough on stains, tough on the causes of stains. 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 -------------------------------------------------
