Not a bad intro for those not familiar with whatever we're calling media art this month. I can't see what has triggered the article, it doesn't tie in to anything in particular and only refers to last year's exhibition? Which by the way Rob reviewed very eloquently for FF:
http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews/decode-digital-design-sensations-va It is a shame that they've identified certain artists above others. But maybe that's also a good sign that there isn't necessarily a canon of great and good artists in the field yet. Sure, we all know about certain stars and those who have mastered the self-publicity machine but there's a chance that everyone can still have some relevance and importance in creating work within this area, regardless of how much funding they get. My one disappointment is that the article comes from a Wired writer, rather than someone in the art world. There need to be more people writing about this stuff in an art context. But what the hell, when has that ever happened in mainstream papers? M On 30 Jun 2011, at 09:48, Rob Myers wrote: > On 30/06/11 09:41, dave miller wrote: >> Article on electronic arts - page 25 - "Why we'll bin easels for pixels" > > Here: > > http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/867856-technology-meets-art-why-we-ll-bin-easels-for-pixels > >> Talks about the V&A exhibition from last year - Decode >> >> Lots of hype going on for certain featured "emerging talents" - real > > To be fair the V&A show was billed as a design show, and the groups they > list are very cool digital design houses. > >> shame no mention of the real talents of Furtherfield > > Maybe another article? :-) > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
