Rob, Simon, It's really interesting to consider different perspectives in understanding the language we use (intermedia, multimedia, relationism....and, of course, network/ed). I really appreciate your engagement in this discussion and find it extremely helpful to be able to converse about all of this. I'm a great believer in 'working things out' through dialogue, however, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage not having anyone around me that is all that knowledgeable in this specific area. Don't get me wrong...very helpful people that each provide excellent info from their own backgrounds, but no one that is really spending all of their time doing this kind of thinking.
Without knowing much about your own backgrounds, I'm guessing that Simon and I might be coming from the same areas...just in terms of understandings of intermedia and multimedia (I come from fine arts originally). However, I like to challenge my own perspectives and language and factor other ways of understanding into my evolving theories. Cultural theorist Mieke Bal (visual culture, visual studies) distinguishes between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary as "inter" being about the production of something new through the interrelationship of media/forms/ideas...something that would not exist otherwise. The "inter" and "multi" are often used interchangably in many areas of study and I find Bal's distinction to be useful for my own thinking. "Trans" is also used in place of "inter" sometimes as well, and I think of "trans" as being more about crossing over to something as opposed to a form or thing that emerges from the in- between (transmedia might be even more useful than crossmedia, depending of course). And then, in terms of a specific medium, there is the whole debate about "post-medium" (Krauss, 2006) which is also accompanied by "remediation" (Bolter)....where Krauss and others after her have discussed there being no medium anymore, yet with remediation the idea is that all new media just borrows and reuses past media, thus there is indeed a medium (save that for another discussion!). Simon: "The intent is to reveal the dynamics of social relations by evidencing the becoming of the artefact at a nexus of social relations." -- This is what I am most interested in. I am interested in analyzing these moments, the process of "becoming of the artefact," and in some cases, what the participants learn or take away with them from this encounter/process. I guess this is why I enjoy thinking about and discussing art within a learning environment. I am interested in this "becoming" in terms of both audience reception but also the learning process of the artist - how the experience transfers into what they go on to do next and (in my dissertation) how this transfers into what/ how they teach to their students. Rob: If I understand correctly your views on Relationalism than I concur with what you are saying, in that the networks focused on tend to be the social and economic networks of the artists/galleries/ etc. when in fact these are not the networks that produce the work. But I'm still not exactly sure what you think are the networks that produce the works. Some would argue (Bourriaud perhaps) that the relations are those produced by all of the participants. I know for myself that I am quite interested in looking at networked art from a micro perspective and then perhaps comparing that experience to the larger social and economic concerns. However, I'm most interested in the specific interaction between a viewer/participant/user/student/learner/artist and the artwork itself, which might need to involve other participants depending on the artwork, and I argue that Nicholas Davey's work on hermeneutic aesthetics might be usefully applied in this area. Simon: "Networked art does use networks which, in today's world, are generally run on and through computing systems (which are mostly digital). Teasing apart the mediale relations between all the elements involved in networked art is complex. Some artists (and theorists) have made entire careers out of it." -- I think I'm up for the "teasing apart" as long as I can make the argument that networked art does not need to lead us to technological determinism and that, on the contrary, perhaps we can learn about ourselves and each other more by embracing networked art and expanding/ challenging/opening it up. If others feel my philosophical interests of self-inquiry/realization don't really have a place in networked art.....well, then I'm screwed and need to start over. I actually see Relational art as a from of learning, thus relevant to the education field, and want to import some of the social understandings of that into our relationship with networked art. Thanks for sharing and maybe I'll track each of you down on the good ol' social networks :) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
