Good point Simon. Maybe I'm deliberately trying to be ignorant of the canon that is forming around the form? Or if there is a canon then I'm questioning it and asking myself who I want to be in my personal canon of good and great. Also I prefer to think that those who have shown at those elite institutions aren't necessarily the best or most valid proponents. But I think we're both saying that? There should be a chance of new artists emerging from the background noise of work and it is these that we should be championing above those established names. I'm bored with some of those artists who have already managed to establish themselves through university funding and having gotten there first* let's rebuild this world.
* I'm being polemical here and a bit mischevious. Some of those people ahve created some of my favourite work. On 2 Jul 2011, at 13:49, Simon Biggs wrote: > Mark > > This was an a-historical post. No canon of practitioners in new media art? > There are a good number of very well established artists in a field that is > around half a century old. Some of these artists have shown at the elite > levels of the mainstream artworld, such as Venice, MoMA or the Tate (for > what that is worth). Many are held in international collections and their > work repeatedly discussed and cited in major publications from around the > world. There is definitely a canon of new media artists and lineages (in a > diverse field of practices). Whilst this might not be a good thing itself, > to be ignorant of it is certainly disadvantageous. You need to understand > the context you are working within. None of us are re-inventing the wheel. > > Best > > Simon > > > On 02/07/2011 12:23, "Mark Hancock" <[email protected]> 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 >> >> 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 > > > Simon Biggs | [email protected] | www.littlepig.org.uk > > [email protected] | Edinburgh College of Art > www.eca.ac.uk/circle | www.elmcip.net | www.movingtargets.net > > > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
