Hi Simon
I think the cinema experience, such as it is, has radically changed, from Imax to watching 'episodes' on computer, to viewer-interactive cinema, and from even 'machinima' (whose historic routes are now ignored) to 'live' Second Life performance, on screen or projected or immersive. I'm not sure the same people are in place at all now, at least in the US; a lot of independent productions of whatever sort (think web-based video for example) use fellow students or just people in the neighborhood; I think the unions themselves might be on the way out. I think one might make an argument for Facebook as interactive cinema; when I taught filmmaking at Brown a couple years ago, the students were busy with Fb in class - it was a continualy unraveling narrative/diegsis that didn't stop for anything. Perhaps a reasonable approach would be in terms of audio-visual flows always already interactive (I remember Smythe way back when already talking about 'audience work'), taking it from there. Come to think of it, I was 2nd virtual writer-in-residence with trAce (sic, Nottingham, under Sue Thome); the first was Christie Sanford- Sheffield who worked brilliantly with something like html, creating moving narratives/poetics that would even now be difficult to classify. Or think about Jodi. But I might be missing something here; for me, the world is in flux on every level, media/genre/canon are temporary stases at best, and, driven by increasingly fast feed-forward technologies, are increasingly useless in thinking through culture, technology, what used to be media, themselves. - Alan On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Simon Biggs wrote: > Hi Alan > > Yes, I agree with you. Media specificity was the Achilles Heel of > materialist analysis. I recently attended a Laura Mulvey talk and she was > trying to undertake a materialist analysis of Mark Lewis's work, a > film-maker who has moved from using celluloid to video to digital > technology. It didn't add up, as she twisted herself in knots trying to > explain why his work is like it is because of what it is made of. That his > work has hardly changed, as he has shifted media, only made her talk seem > more obtuse. > > One of the implications of media convergence is that media are not defined > primarily, even only tangentially, by their physical attributes. Cinema has > remained cinema whilst film has gone the way of the Dodo. Cinema, as an > industry, has been transformed in terms of its material production (digital > equipment) and distribution (over networks) but production crews have > remained more or less the same and the cinema experience has been sustained. > People still make and talk about video - but when was the last time you used > a video tape (now it is flash memory). The terms film and video are employed > interchangeably, without thought for media's historical traits. Some people > try to avoid the issue by talking of moving image or lens based media. > > None of the above represent solutions if the social constitution of the > medium is not considered. Cinema is cinema, and retains a role, due to how > it engages people. There is something about an audio-visual phenomenon that > functions as a collective sensory stimulus that people respond to. It is a > something people acquired a taste for at the turn of the last century and it > persists, possibly when projection itself is gone and the screen has been > replaced by a holographic volumetric display space. To understand why this > is the case we shouldn't be analysing the light bulb in the projector or the > frame rate of film or the compression algorithm for the data, although these > are all subjects worthy of analysis for various reasons, but consider the > various and diverse relations that constitute the context and actuality of > the experience. Latour's polyvalent approach would seem more appropriate. > > This comes back to Heidi's original query about the relationship between > networks and digital media. Networks, in the sense that we have come to > understand them in relation to the internet, would probably not have > developed without the digital switching systems and digitally encoded > protocols that are the material substrate of the medium. There is value in > analysing these characteristics in order to understand how the internet > works. But, as with cinema or TV, I can imagine the technological > underpinnings of the internet could shift radically (for example, from a > digital electronic system to an analogue bio-electronic system) without much > effect on how the network is experienced or used. A material analysis of the > systems involved would offer limited insight into why the medium remains the > medium as it would fail to consider the social and other dimensions of the > medium. > > I am not sure what the term intermedia might mean in this context. Is it the > same as relational art? Conflation, like this, is risky. These terms are art > historical in origin and should be used within context. If those contexts > are different due to geographical and cultural variations in those histories > then those factors also have to be considered. > > Best > > Simon > > > On 16/12/2010 22:59, "Alan Sondheim" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi - I think it might be different in the US. For example early on we had >> Radical Software and Raindance Corporation, neither of which were >> concerned with materiality as far as I know; either was my work or >> Acconci's for example. >> >> On a larger issue, I absolutely don't understand media specificty; when I >> think of cinema/film for example, I think of practices involving every- >> thing from from maybe 10 film formats to maybe 5 different chemistries (at >> least) to performance art, film installation, film/video installation and >> video/film film/video transfers to filmless projectors and projectorless >> films to indoor and outdoor theaters, slide projections indoors or >> outdoors on buildings (Red Slider), etc.; when I think of venues I think >> of traditional (NBC for example) networks, network hacking or interrupts >> (Chris Burden, pirate television), galleries, lensless projectors, hand- >> held projectors, ganzfeld experiments, etc. And film is one of the more >> conservative "media". My own work involved videoing film of slit-scan >> oscilloscope projections, live performances, wimhurst generator things >> that would 'spark' the tape or film, film portraits maybe accompanied by >> texts and photographs, 4-dimensional hypercube projections made out of >> string accompanied by film of crt displays, and so forth. And I wasn't >> alone in this of course. >> >> Higgins (who I knew) it seems to me in relation to Fluxus which is in >> relation to Facebook and _that_ is the true intermedia, which is >> ultimately epistemologically messy and irreducible. At the time there was >> also Richard Kostelanetz, Alison Knowles, Benjamin Patterson, and tons of >> other people smearing boundaries all over the place. To me it's the >> boundary itself that's in question, and the question is that of violating >> previously considered inviolate media. >> >> Media also tends to drag with it notions of genre/canon/connnoisseurship - >> Nam June Paik for example as the 'first' video artist, whatever - when >> this is truly a ridiculous stance, ignoring Ernie Kovacs - but then he was >> (somewhat) 'popular' - there were a lot of other people as well, including >> ham operators who were doing slowscan (along later with N.E. Thing >> Company) and all sorts of video experiments. >> >> I don't understand media, specificity of media, media history, nomencla- >> ture, etc. - it seems obscuring to me. >> >> This is particularly true in terms of 'dance,' 'performance,' 'theater,' >> 'choreography,' 'mime,' 'x-games,' contemporary comedia del arte, etc. >> Then there's new media, postmodern media, intermedia, mediation, >> remediation, medical attention. Argh! >> >> The joy to me is basically that definitions _don't_ hold, any more than >> discussions about what is or isn't art were fruitful in the 70s say or >> 80s. >> >> I remember WCW going on about back to the things themselves, things of >> course being processes, the buzzing world. >> >> - Alan >> >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Simon Biggs wrote: >> >>> I was describing Intermedia as I encounter it being practiced around me, >>> now. I am aware of Higgins definitions and its early forms, as in the >>> happening. Yes, to some extent what I do could be considered intermedia in >>> this original framework - but it isn't. My work is made with media and takes >>> into consideration the specificity of that media in the construction of the >>> work, both its material and social dimensions. I do not make work that is >>> intended to be realised across media. I can't even imagine how I could make >>> such work, for "making" necessarily engages media and that can never be >>> discounted from the intent or reception of the work. "How" the work is made >>> is as central to its ontology as "why". >>> >>> I would also argue that "experiencing" involves mediation and that the same >>> holds true in respect of the reception of art and other phenomena. To >>> understand that one can experience something without mediation requires a >>> suspension of disbelief I cannot contemplate - this seems a metaphysical >>> ideal...and that is what I was trying to get at when I suggested that >>> intermedia art might be impossible. >>> >>> Here at eca we have an Intermedia department, founded on Higgins's >>> principles. The department asks its students to develop work that is >>> abstracted from specific media, that seeks to remove mediality from its >>> initial foundational thinking, so that a work can then be realised in >>> various media. As you can see from my argument above, I don't think that is >>> really possible. But there is a backstory to this. Within the UK artworld >>> this is what Intermedia has come to mean, as practiced by Martin Creed, >>> Sarah Lucas and others. A good example is new British video art. For three >>> decades there had been a community of video artists working away within the >>> UK, who identified themselves in the larger context of an international >>> group of practitioners. Few, if any, of these artists gained much visibility >>> beyond their immediate context. >>> >>> Then, in the late 80's and early 90's, a new generation of artists emerged >>> who also worked with video - but they did so without any reference to the >>> prior generation. This new generation became known as the Brit-art group. >>> Where the artists of the 70's and 80's were largely concerned with media >>> materiality and the specificity of what they did the new generation were >>> not. They chose to ignore the history of video art and situate their work as >>> either related to the mass-media (eg: TV and cinema) or to be non-mediale. >>> For them the apparatus of video was transparent, something the earlier >>> generation had worked to make evident they sought to make invisible. This >>> was very much an intermedia approach, arising from a very specific place >>> (Goldsmiths) and a specific teacher (Michael Craig Martin). It was in a >>> sense a school of practice and this is what still typifies intermedia in the >>> UK, whether it's realised as video, performance or objects. What all these >>> practices have in common is an intentional blindness to prior practices that >>> sought to understand their mediality in material and social terms. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> On 16/12/2010 13:43, "Paul Hertz" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Intermedia idealised to the point of probable non-existence? >>>> >>>> Higgins' examples in his seminal essay make clear the broad >>>> application of the term. Far from bordering on non-existence, it >>>> represents one way forward through the proliferation of media and the >>>> supposed demise of formal experimentation associated with the chute of >>>> the avant-garde. >>>> >>>> Translation of the forms of one media into another is one aspect of >>>> intermedia. In this sense, Schwitters' Ursonate is intermedia, musical >>>> form imposed on the phonemes of the German language. Hippy lightshows >>>> and today's digital signal transcoding by VJs operate in the same >>>> spirit, without requiring the formalism. A great many artists, myself >>>> among them, work with more formal transcoding through computational >>>> language, where compositional forms may be encoded in such a way as to >>>> migrate freely from one sensory modality to another. >>>> >>>> But Higgins also anticipates metaphorical applications of intermedia. >>>> Methods of mapping one medium to another can be work in ways similar >>>> to ritual, where symbols operate in different sensory modalities and >>>> may change their significance midstream--an object is whatever the >>>> ritual (a context for creating meaning) declares it to be. >>>> >>>> "The Happening developed as intermedium, an uncharted land that lies >>>> between collage, music, and the theater. It is >>>> not governed by rules; each work determines its own medium and form >>>> according to its needs." (Dick Higgins, Intermedia, 1966) >>>> >>>> As an intermedia practitioner for many years, I'd be fascinated to >>>> know why my art is likely non-existent. >>>> >>>> Seriously, I think Higgins' definition of intermedia was broad enough >>>> (and some might say vague enough) to include a wide swath of >>>> contemporary art practices. >>>> >>>> You might even be practicing it yourself, without knowing it, like prose. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> >>>> -- Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> HIggins thought intermedia might be not simply an artistic movement, >>>> but the form the future art would take. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Simon Biggs <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Intermedia is a specific area of artistic practice pioneered by Dick >>>>> Higgins. Its principle was that the artist could produce artworks that >>>>> existed between or distinct to media and therefore be translatable across >>>>> media. It is, in a sense, a universalist model of art and thus could be >>>>> considered modernist in its intent (although Higgins's work is usually >>>>> considered proto-postmodern). It is arguable whether such an idealised >>>>> artwork could ever exist. >>>>> >>>>> Multimedia is not an art form or style of art. It is the application or >>>>> use >>>>> of more than one medium in the production and dissemination of something. >>>>> >>>>> Relational art is distinct again. It's concerns are with the social >>>>> relations around the reception and valuing of something. The intent is to >>>>> reveal the dynamics of social relations by evidencing the becoming of the >>>>> artefact at a nexus of social relations. It does this by revealing >>>>> people's >>>>> interactions with things in the performative. >>>>> >>>>> Networked art may or may not engage with all or none of the above. Whether >>>>> it does or does not may or may not be a function of the artists intent. >>>>> Whether a work succeeds in its aims will depend on how it is received and >>>>> the artist has (at best) only partial responsibility for that. 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. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16/12/2010 06:12, "Heidi May" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rob, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your input - I will have to reflect more on the links you >>>>>> provided and might email you back. >>>>>> >>>>>> A historically contextualised concept of "networks" will >>>>>>> >>>>>>> naturally dissolve the distinction between intermedia artists and >>>>>>> multimedia artists so I wouldn't worry about drawing it. I'd just >>>>>>> steer >>>>>>> well clear of Relationalism, which exists precisely to obscure the >>>>>>> structure of its networks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't mind if you expanded on the distinction you see between >>>>>> intermedia and multimedia, and more about your thoughts on the >>>>>> relationship between Relationalism and networks. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks again, >>>>>> Heidi >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15-Dec-10, at 4:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Message: 3 >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:47:58 +0000 >>>>>>> From: Rob Myers <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] defining "network/ed" in art >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/13/2010 10:48 PM, Heidi May wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Speaking as an artist who >>>>>>>> teaching art at universities and college, I feel that "networked >>>>>>>> art" is >>>>>>>> immediately associated with digital and new media. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, the Internet is the defining communication network of the age. >>>>>>> But >>>>>>> there have been and will be other communication networks (the >>>>>>> telegraph, >>>>>>> television, and postal networks have all been used to create art). And >>>>>>> if we use "network" to mean "social network" (in the sociological >>>>>>> rather >>>>>>> than the Facebook sense): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then art is almost always the product of networks. Projects like "The >>>>>>> Republic Of Letters" and "Unconcealed" use data to show those >>>>>>> networks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In distinguishing between network and networked art (on whatever >>>>>>> network) a little mis-applied mathematical terminology may help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can define network art as art that exists on the edges of the >>>>>>> network >>>>>>> graph, and networked art as art that exists at its vertices: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.mteww.com/nad.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think there's lots of research and lots of useful thinking that >>>>>>> can be >>>>>>> done here. A historically contextualised concept of "networks" will >>>>>>> naturally dissolve the distinction between intermedia artists and >>>>>>> multimedia artists so I wouldn't worry about drawing it. I'd just >>>>>>> steer >>>>>>> well clear of Relationalism, which exists precisely to obscure the >>>>>>> structure of its networks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Rob. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/ >>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ >>> >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.elmcip.net/ >>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> >> >> >> == >> email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ >> webpage http://www.alansondheim.org >> music archive: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ >> current text http://www.alansondheim.org/qv.txt >> == >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > > > [email protected] > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > > [email protected] > http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > == email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ webpage http://www.alansondheim.org music archive: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ current text http://www.alansondheim.org/qv.txt == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
