On 02/07/11 12:23, Mark Hancock wrote: > 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
Thank you. :-) The companion review to that, of what was in many ways its companion show, is here: http://www.furtherfield.org/reviews/digital-pioneers > 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 Who Shall Remain Nameless. ;-) > a chance that everyone can still have some relevance and importance in > creating work within this area, regardless of how much funding they get. Definitely. > 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? Media art remains a minority interest. It is both up for grabs and in need of correctives to the would-be dominant narratives. This is a strange situation to be in, but it is still one with definite possibilities. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
