On 02 Mar 2010, at 03:11, Douglas Bagnall wrote: > I think I get your political point, Damian, but sometimes people > actually want to say something specific. Even you. I mean, is your > message improved thus:? > >> [...] attempt to address the multiple histories that bring forth both >> *art*, and contemporary artworks dealing with similar issues.
no, but by changing the quote in that way you've removed my point. i could have written 'attempt to address the multiple histories that bring forth art that deals with audiviosuology' but i wanted to make it clear that it was not just a 'new-media' exhibition or just an 'old media' exhibition, it included artworks from both schools. sigh. the real triumph of this exhibition was that it was self-consciously curated to include both 'new media' and 'old media' works under one roof __without drawing attention to the fact__. part of the curatorial stance can be read as, "i don't care if it's 'new media' or 'old media', i'm just interested in art, and here's an exhibition to prove it." > You use the category in practise, do i? i use it based on the assumption that we are in a perhaps transitory period where some people are using it, and some aren't. the term is there to catch people who are still using it, while the scare quotes and the phrasing are my attempt to disassociate myself from it. > so what is wrong with it? Just the > name? Or, from another angle, how can you tell that some of the art in > "See This Sound" is called "new media" and some isn't? in the context of the exhibition, you can't, which is my point. _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
