[syndicate] Fwd:REFRESH! conference, some impressions
fmadre at free.fr
fmadre at free.fr
Thu Oct 6 11:15:47 CEST 2005
> The First
>
> \ .
> \\
>I am \\
> \\
> \\ new My own
> \ , including Fluxus
> \\
> \\
>the real"-that \\
> \\ ---------
> \ -----------------
> follows ----------------- comes
> --------- \\
> \\
>The first thing \\
> \\
> \
\\
>I thought was pretty good, \\
>histories" to a session on \\
"history \\
> \
> \\ --------
i ----------------
> ---------------- \\
> -------- \\
> X
> //
> // pleasure.
> // the young
>nothings, a bit more // occasion.
> //
> //
> // point
// ---------
>s // ----------------
> ----------------
> --------- // order:
> // the age
> // shift
> //
> // ----
> // ------
> // . I learned something. -------
> // ------
> // -------
> // ------
> // -------
> // ------
> // -------
> // ------
> ----
> I mean o c , t int)
> la if
> i
> s
> c
This
> was an -no discussion of
> mentio en
> machi nd-b
value-
> for
>
>
> clu
peopl
> rea
>
lazy
> but p
> to be
> presen
> the Oc
> * Mi
> sustain
> * Joha
> institution
> * the final,
> Diamond. This wa
the
> table, nd it was
> it was eally a hi
> feelin that while t
>
>I didn' go to everything, needless to re were good
>things other panels. I heard that Clau cybernetics
was
>excellen for instance.
>
>That said he conference overall suffered gr what Trebor
Scholz
>and Geert nk have dubbed "panelism": a terri structure in which
>moderators delivered papers within the format a way over-tight
>schedule and h virtually no time for questions; a few speakers went
>beyond their d minutes in the first sessions and then panels were
>policed to an a conian degree, making the entire assembly tense.
>Discussions were d. In , to this art historian it
>seemed weird that peop conference on something as
>shifting and relatively openly ew media" (how many papers in
>fact began with loose attempts to list the salient features of new media)
>and then sit and hear something they could have read already. for though
>the organizers had posted quite a number of papers on their official
>website _____ __ __ _ __ those
>papers. / ___/__ ___ ____/ /_ / / ___ _ __(_)__ / /__
> / (_ / -_) -_) __/ __/ / /__/ _ \ |/ / / _ \/ '_/
>What sur \___/\__/\__/_/ \__/ /____/\___/___/_/_//_/_/\_\ ess of
>anxietie egorized
>as "art" or as "new media," these inflected many of the panel
>presentations and discussions, and not in a productive way. Part of the
>problem, as Andreas Broeckman pointed out in the final crit session, was
>that the mission of the conference was probably too broadly and vaguely
>defined. But what ___ __ rt
>history" can't de / _ | ___ ___/ /______ ___ ____ know is,
>what precisely is / __ |/ _ \/ _ / __/ -_) _ `(_-<
>castigation of ar /_/ |_/_//_/\_,_/_/ \__/\_,_/___/ ., it
>sounded to me lik p; this
>seemed overwrough ___ __ and
>politically thoug / _ )_______ ___ ____/ /__ __ _ ___ ____ as quite
>right to note tha / _ / __/ _ \/ -_) __/ '_// ' \/ _ `/ _ \
>conference his ch /____/_/ \___/\__/\__/_/\_\/_/_/_/\_,_/_//_/ times.
>Art history and n or worse,
>Rudolf Arnheim; new media people would do well to read Panofsky and
>Warburg, just as I and at least some of my colleagues read Weiner and
>Kittler. Art history may not yet be able to deal with new media, but
>perhaps it is also the case that new media doesn't know how to deal with
>art history.
>
>On this score a truly ck on the first day by Mark
>Hansen, whose h lame that even the
new
>media theori ere bugged. Instead of new media g its lack of
>recognition by art history and then its savaging of sa e want to be
>with you; we hate you" or "I love you; go away") it migh more
>productive to stage a genuine encounter. Leaving aside And s Broeckman,
>who gave a very nice but grossly amputated (ran out of time resentation
> __ ___ __ ful presentati comparing
> / |/ /__ _____/ /__ the art histor s who were
> / /|_/ / _ `/ __/ '_/ dieval Islamic or with
> /_/ /_/\_,_/_/ /_/\_\ were no art his rians
> ready part of th inner
> ______ _ __ sely the encoun that
n /_ __/___(_) / ___
> / / / __/ / _ \/ -_) t historian, an
> /_/ /_/ /_/_.__/\__/ on appropri , and while
> tation of historical
>material was painful and for at least this listener un ined his
>credibility. (On the other hand, Cornelius Borck, a h orian of
medicine,
>gave a |errific presentation-historically nuanced, lligently read,
and |
>careful|y resea|ched-on the optophone of Raoul Hausman and Hausman's
>complic|ted rel|tionship to prosthesis.) From my perspective this
suggests| |
>a serio|s probl|m of disc|plinarity: surely just as new media
>artists|theoris|s expect | sophisticated treatment from art historians
>(Simon |enny ag|in: art h|storians|should learn engineering, cognitive
>science| neuros|ience bef|re they |iscuss n|w media.) so new media
artists | | | | |
>and the|rists s|ould trea| the wor| that co|es before-both art and
>media-w|th the |istorical|complexi|y (witho|t going |o Pennyian excess)
>art his|ory at |ts best d|monstrat|s. | |
> | | | | | |
>Other i|sues th|t came up| | | |
> * P|oblems |f storage|& retrie|al of ne| media w|rk. From an
> histor|cal poi|t of view|this dem|nstrates|a remark|ble degree of
> self-c|nscious|ess on th| part of|new new |edia-som|thing new,
> incide|tally, |n the lon|er histo|y of med|a, and i|terest|ng as a
phenomen|n. | | | | | |
> * H|ge anxi|ty about |he "art"|status o| new med|a, alo|gside a
> subthe|atic of|the relat|on to sc|ence and|to scien|ific m|dels of
research| | | | | | |
> * A|ulatory|fetishizi|g of cog|itive sc|ence, en|ineeri|g, and
> neuros|ience (|n marked |ontrast |o the di|sing of |rt his|ory).
> * L|ck of a|fixed def|nition o| new med|a, with |epeate| nods|to
> hybrid|zation,|bodily en|agement,|non-hier|rchical |tructu|e, |
networki|g, | | | | | | |
> and so|on. | | | | | | |
> * D|sconnec| of the k|ynote sp|akers. C|uchot ha| diffi|ulty |ith
> Englis| and se|med, whil| emphasi|ing hybr|dity, to|be spe|king |rom
> another time. Sarat Maharaj rambled for nearly 2 hours abo|t Rud|lf
> Arnheim and the Other; I found this talk excruciating, though I |ater
> spoke with someone (media artist, go figure) for whom it had bee| a high
> point. And Lucia Santaella's beautifully delivered, rigorously
> near-hallucinatory and religious but to me quasi-apocalyptic vision of
> the "semiotic" and "post-human" present/future of the "exo-brain" was a
> chilling picture of species-death.
> * Ongoing problem of gender and geographic distribution. While
> non-Western topics one
> panel that dealt i _ _ ._ _| _ ._ also
> the one panel that(_| (/_ | | (_| (/_ | t the
> most flak in its f _|
those
> dealing with non-Western paradigms were Western. This relegation of
> dealing with the Other to the women is typical. There was also some
> grumbling that many of the non-Western projects had been tucked into the
> _ . It would have been
> \_|_) o en a panel on doing
> | _ _ -Ameri-Nippon.
> _| | / |/ | | | /\/ rpoint.. And then, as
> (/\___/|_/ | |_/ \_/|_/ /\_/ of the people at the
> dom had little
gl
> apples at their desks. No sign of Linux.
>
> _
> \_|_) o
> | _ _
> _| | / |/ | | | /\/
(/\___/|_/ | |_/ \_/|_/ /\_/
More information about the Syndicate
mailing list