nettime 35,000 feet and surfing...
Hi, I am sorry if the nettime audience is already familiar with it - but about 30 minutes ago, I turned on my laptop and noticed a wireless connection... Within a few minutes I was online (at US$10 / hour or something like US$30 for the whole flight). It's not often I get excited about technology and especially net technology - but this experience is really making me feel like I am discovering something new!! It's a strange experience surfing the net while flying... I still can't believe that I am using my notebook at 35,000 feet - located somewhere between Sydney and Singapore - pulling down email, skyping (yes - voice calls work fine) and sending this email. So, greetings to Nettime community - I hope this message does get through, and please forgive me for sending such an self-indulgent message. If it's old news to Nettimers - hopefully a moderator will block this message :-) If you want to know more - here's the url: http://www.boeing.com/connexion/ ... Am assuming it's a satellite connection of some sort. So, I wonder how far seamless connectivity is? Though most likely, they'll make disconnect you during landing and take-off. Best wishes, Sam :-) # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime a new definition
Olia: Because New media does not usually refer to relatively recent mass media. It does not usually refer to mass media discourse. It refers to the digital medium: computer, computer networks. And unfortunately to interactive media and other forms of multimedia when it comes to giving definitions. I don't think this has always been true. McLuhan, for example, already uses the term new media in his writings from the 1960s. And as a thirty-something, I remember how video and cable TV were commonly referred to as new media in the 1980s. (And media art was thought to be more or less synonymous with video art. Just look at the history of ars electronica and transmediale.) But it's symptomatic of new media discourses, of course, that they deny their history; after all, that's what the term new is about. The whole entry, IMHO, is based on a confusion of the term new media with new media studies and should have been a separate article with the according title. It is not a confusion, it is my statement, that the term New Media as a name for a field of studies is the only meaningful appearance of this term. But new media refer to the new media themselves, not their field of study. One could say, for example, that the DVD, the iPod, HDTV or P2P networks are (fairly) new media. To use an analogy: One would not define literature as synonymous with literary studies on the sole grounds that university programs are normally called - in the anglophone and francophone world - literature and not literature studies. After watching Refresh streams I looked in The Language of New Media book for the definition -- it was not there. I looked in New Media Reader. The Term was not defined. I looked in Wikipedia -- after you know (see the beginning of the message). Well, all of this isn't perhaps too surprising. There are a lot of McGuffin terms in the humanities that are frequently used, but remain deliberately un- or underdefined. Cassirer's symbolic forms come to my mind, Foucault's discourse and, well, the term media itself. -F -- http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70 gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime a new definition
Le 7 nov. 05, =E0 00:53, Florian Cramer a =E9crit : Olia: Because New media does not usually refer to relatively recent mass=20= media. It does not usually refer to mass media discourse. It refers to the=20 digital medium: computer, computer networks. And unfortunately to interactive media=20= and other forms of multimedia when it comes to giving definitions. I don't think this has always been true. McLuhan, for example, already=20= uses the term new media in his writings from the 1960s. ... er, in its time, acrylic painting was called new media. ... -- OG -/ giving definitions ! hahahahahahah! don't be silly ! /-= # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime 10 questions a net.artist has to be aware of
1) what is it? 2) why is it art? 3) is programming art? 4) why are you doing that? 5) who is paying for such a s**t ? 6) do you make a lot of money with your art? 7) are you famous? 8) what are you talking about? 9) are you a hacker ? (read: are you a criminal/ terrorist?) 10) have you ever had sex? -- http://tinyurl.com/dc655 # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime a new definition
This discussion is starting to get interesting. I too agree with Florian and disagree with Olia that Olia's text is not as good as the texts Olia replaced. I also do not think Olia is keeping to Wikipedia's goal of neutrality. In fact, many Wikipedia entries fail to achieve neutrality. Perhaps as interesting, as a scholar I find Olia's position argumentative and the previous entries not argumentative and not bad. Much of Olia's defense is argumentative, which is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated goals. If I refer to Wikipedia in a published work, I would have no reaso= n to expect the Wikipedia entry to change, and certainly not so dramatically, and certainly not on the authority of one person. Despite all this, THIS IS WHAT I LOVE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. There *are* more and less neutral definitions in the world, but they are unstable and unreliable and likely to be overtaken by more opinionated advocates. The Britannica illusion of stable definitions is false and always has been false--a temporary consensus that projects the appearance of permanence. It never has been permanent. Wikipedia helps us see that, if we are willing to accept the constraints it makes visible in discourse. Which is also one of the reasons why the very term new media is so intensely problematic--something none of these versions really touches on= . Whose new media? New compared to what? Olia wrote: Sorry to insist, but this text is bad. The first two sentences can sound reasonable in the context of media study, communicating that -- in the opinion of media study -- the New Medium W= WW and the New Medium Video Games have mass media potential. The following very abstract interactive media and other forms of multimedia are meaningless satellites of the term without any connection to mass media. It is not a confusion, it is my statement, that the term New Media as a name for a field of studies is the only meaningful appearance of this term. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime a new definition
hi, i still remember when i found out that what i used to call media art was referred to as new media art in the u.s. where exactly (in terms of geography, tradition and technology) is the border drawn? google delivers some disillusioning opinions on new media: http://www.google.com/search? hl=enlr=client=safarirls=enoi=defmoredefl=enq=define:new+media The first two sentences can sound reasonable in the context of media study, communicating that -- in the opinion of media study -- the New Medium WWW and the New Medium Video Games have mass media potential. The following very abstract interactive media and other forms of multimedia are meaningless satellites of the term without any connection to mass media. But my problem with this definition is not that it is vague -- in this case I'd edit it, replacing interactive media with nbsp; and CD-Rom with iPod. My problem is that this definition is irrelevant. Because New media does not usually refer to relatively recent mass media. It does not usually refer to mass media discourse. It refers to the digital medium: computer, computer networks. And unfortunately to interactive media and other forms of multimedia when it comes to giving definitions. as i mentioned before the bigger lack in definitions is that the term media is not defined in wikipedia. were it settled we could use it to build a technical or social definition of new media. i think the definition problem's origin is that mcluhan and others always insisted on rather technical descriptions of media. or at least they drew the line between one medium and the other on a technical basis. boiling down new media to digital media is also technical - and quite limiting. if you look at the definition of new media art you find the same: New media art (also known as media art) is a generic term used to describe art related to, or created with, a technology invented or made widely available since the mid-20th Century. (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media_arts) in an older version the chasm is even more visible: New Media Art is an umbrella term which generically describes artwork that incorporates an element of new media technology. New media technologies are defined as technologies that were invented, or began integration into society from the mid 20th Century (via http:// wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/New_Media_Art) i would love to have media art embrace an element of a medium rather than of media technology. but new media then still burns down to technology. be it as dull a definition as the older version of the wikipedia entry shows. outside new media studies, new media are broadly accepted to be technical artefacts - just because a field of studies around the term was constructed does not mean that the object of study is limited to the role of being an object of study... Olia completely deleted it and replaced it with: | New Media is the field of study that has developed around cultural | practices with the computer playing a central role as the medium for | production, storage and distribution. | | New Media studies reflect on the social and ideological impact of the | personal computer, computer networks, digital mobile devices, ubiquitous | computing and virtual reality. The study includes researchers and | propagators of new forms of artistic practices such as interactive | installations, net art, software art, the subsets of interaction, | interface design and the concepts of interactivity, multimedia and | remediation. [...] The whole entry, IMHO, is based on a confusion of the term new media with new media studies and should have been a separate article with the according title. It is not a confusion, it is my statement, that the term New Media as a name for a field of studies is the only meaningful appearance of this term. When it comes to artistic or design practices, terms like digital culture, mobile computing, net art, interface design or even information architecture describe precisely the field of activity. New media artist, New media worker, New media design are quite blurry terms. At the same time New Media department of an academy, New Media Reader, New Media teacher are reasonable constructions, because they are associated with a maturing study, that is btw not at all a subdivision of Media Studies. New Media is not a perfect name for a study as well. But it has some adequate properties I mentioned in the wikipedia article*. And again, as I wrote in my last nettime message, my intention is that the term shrinks. It was quite embarrassing to watch the Refresh conference** and see how curators and theoreticians are again and again fantasizing on what is New Media and how new it is, and what is old (as if the term New Media contains in itself an implication to other, not digital media to unite under an Old Media banner -- but this is
