to me! :)
On Friday 12 January 2007 15:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And to whom is New Media art insignificant? > > On 12/1/2007, "aabrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >dear Eric > > > >Could you name these significant paintings, photos and installations made > >in the last 12 years? > > > >Opening the doors to self publishing and networked visual expression might > >not have produced great images and text (but that's in for discussion > > also), but it has produced new communication spaces and very significant > > volatile interactions. It is contributing every day to giving people air > > in a totally by economics determined world, that only interacts with them > > on a customized base and accustoms them to being treated as databases. > > > >Eric, if you want me to take you serious, you should start to give precise > >critics on works you don't think meeting the standards you would like to > >use. > > > >yours Annie > > > >On 1/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why is New Media Art so insignificant? > >> I have been going over the last 12 years of New Media > >> works trying to find a significant work of art and I > >> have come up empty. Not lost however, and that is a positive thing. This > >> failure isn't true of Painting, Photography, > >> Installation Art. Those media have all produced > >> memorable works. > >> Film and Video have flourished as well ( I think that > >> helps explain the flood of videos by new media > >> artists), but the use of new media for visual > >> expression is sadly on the last bench of the stadium. > >> Even the so-called success of electronic literature > >> pales when compared with the interesting work created > >> in the printed media. > >> Why? > >> It doesn't make sense at first. > >> Opening the doors to self publishing and networked > >> visual expression should have produced great images and > >> text by now, but it hasn't. > >> Whats wrong? > >> I think there is a strange attractor act work here. > >> Works that go through the pain and prejudice of the > >> existing mandated mechanisms actually come out the better for it. > >> There is rigor and self-criticism that is sorely > >> lacking in networked publishing and visual expression in *communities*. > >> For me to acknowledge this is blasphemy in many ways. > >> I was an early proponent of the creative commons (see > >> Leonardo, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1998), pp. 297-298). > >> Is a culture important when it concerns > >> itself with determining what works contain quality and depth and operate > >> as a necessary filter to keep out those works that deserve to fail? > >> Well, no more lazy art. No More easy graphics. > >> If New Media wants to grow up, then it has to set some > >> rigorous standards and demand that the work ACTUALLY be > >> culturally significant on a broad scale. Self indulgence is fun, but > >> it's lazy and middling, and stupid. > >> My avatar died last month, send condolences to Dymes Mulberry on Second > >> Life. Eric > >> > >> > >> + > >> -> post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> -> questions: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >> + > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > >-- > >..mp3 Archives and photos of Oppera Internettikka - Protection et > > Sécurité online. > >http://www.intima.org/oppera/oips/index.html > >http://bram.org/info/oips/ > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- "se voce jah sabe quem vendeu aquela bomba pro iraque, desembuche. eu desconfio que foi o bush..." _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
