Re: nettime a new definition
Great! And Neen is the best of whatever replaces television. Miltos Manetas - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 6:00 PM Subject: Re: nettime a new definition Folks: ... # 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
Regarding the term new media- The practice of codifying a term such as this is very interesting and it is ironic that it is occurring within the technology itself, technology(s) that continues to be defined, such as blogging, this list, etc. Is there a shiny prize here? Let us suppose we can take some steps back and ask exactly what this process of cementing a term means. Is this a territorialization by persons or institutions? What is the intent of this debate or claim? What is the gain? There is potential in the indeterminate. I relish the transdisciplinary confusion computer technology has produced- a pleasing, meandering fluxus. The adjective new is an interesting sell here. The spirits of corporate products reinventing themselves pops-up unwanted on the screen. There is an energetic burst around the polarity of new and old- new world, new world order... a place for prospecting, conquering, refuge, freedom, escape... Is there anything really new about media or our social reaction to changing and defining forms? I am enjoying the space of redefinition in which the term new media abides... Ndrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] # 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 [7x]
Table of Contents: Re: nettime a new definition ctgr-pavu.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: nettime a new definition adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: nettime a new definition martin pichlmair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: nettime a new definition Michael Guggenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: nettime a new definition [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: nettime a new definition Andrew Bucksbarg [EMAIL PROTECTED] mending wikipedia's holes martin pichlmair [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:07:43 +0100 From: ctgr-pavu.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime a new definition Le 7 nov. 05, =E0 23:21, David Golumbia a =E9crit : This discussion is starting to get interesting. I too agree with=20 Florian and disagree with Olia that Olia's text is not as good as the texts Olia=20= replaced. I also do not think Olia is keeping to Wikipedia's goal of neutrality.=20= In fact, many Wikipedia entries fail to achieve neutrality. . neutrality is good for swiss ! i'm ready to manage the Chocolate and the Flat Watches department of=20 wikimachin. - -- OG - -/ neutrality ? ask chemics about it /-= -- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:04:22 +0100 (CET) From: adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime a new definition The adjective new is an interesting sell here. The spirits of corporate products reinventing themselves pops-up unwanted on the screen. There is an energetic burst around the polarity of new and old- new world, new world order... a place for prospecting, conquering, refuge, freedom, escape... nah, i dont think people really think new is 'new' do they? isnt new media now a label not a literal definition? like net.art or New Zealand? adam -- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:31:54 +0100 From: martin pichlmair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime a new definition If you need a term, Olia Lialina, please look for a term that relates to the object itself, and not the circumstances (time/space). Talk about distributive media, digital media, distributive digital media, handheld distributive digital media, - whatever - but not new and old - relating to time. As we all know, time passes and changes and therefore slides away, avvoiding final definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media looks like a lot of work ahead... lg martin attacksyour.net/pi -- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:37:14 +0100 From: Michael Guggenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime a new definition hi, a little comment, to add to a really interesting discussion: what should an encyclopedia do: it should document, not argue. The arguments can be left to pamphlets, discussion lists etc. And if meanings of words change, an encyclopedia should document such changes. That is, the entry on new media should contain a paragraph that explains, that because the term new media is a temporal and relative term, it was employed since the 1950ies (or maybe even earlier?) to designate whatever technology was new at a certain point in time. Then you can list all the technologies under review so far. The nice thing about wikipedia is, that you can update the list, because in a few months, the list will look inevitably dated. The procedure described above would allow to document the historicity of the term. Neither simply insist on the Britannica style-fixity of terms, nor on the all-that-is fluid-supermodernism some of the discussants. Also: new media is by far not the only term that contains a temporal element: see for example avantgarde, (post-)modern, futurism etc. it is a sign of modernity, that the most important terms to describe itself are temporal, it's not a new media specialty and not a corporate complot. Michael Guggenheim -- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:00:25 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime a new definition Folks: Since I first coined the term circa 1989 in various reports I wrote for Wall Street and business audiences and obtained
Re: nettime a new definition
Folks: Since I first coined the term circa 1989 in various reports I wrote for Wall Street and business audiences and obtained this email address in 1992 while on the AOL roadshow from Steve Case, perhaps my original definition would be a curiousity. New media is whatever replaces television. That's all there is to it, Mark Stahlman New Media Laboratory New York # 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
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
Re: nettime a new definition
Florian Cramer wrote: Before her edit, the article said: | New media usually refers to a group of relatively recent mass media | based on new information technology. It is based on computing technology | and not reducible to communication in a traditional sense. Most | frequently the label would be understood to include the Internet and | World Wide Web, video games and interactive media, CD-ROM and other | forms of multimedia popular from the 1990s on. The phrase came to | prominence in the 1990s, and is often used by technology writers like | those at Wired magazine and by scholars in media studies. [...] While this is not perfect, it's not a bad text either. 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 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. 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 another topic). 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). Thank you for your time olia * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_mediaoldid=27098010 ** http://www.banffcentre.ca/bnmi/events/refresh/ -- FROZEN NIKI A blog from a cryogenic box http://frozen-niki.org/ # 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, beside, the term media is also not present in wikipedia. it forwards to mass media and that page gives some rather vague and technical description of media. defining or even only describing new media without first doing so for media sounds futile to me. i was surprised to see the changes you noted in your mail, too. the interim text you mention was the most concise to appear, yet. i would propose to put olia's new media under new media studies (maybe except for the books section) and reanimate the minghong version (New media usually refers to ...). of course wikipedia is about 'doing it - so i'll do that immediately. lg martin On Nov 3, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Florian Cramer wrote: A good example of how some areas of wikipedia are suffering from a lack of participation. It's probably because most media activists are busy posting on their own websites... I am not sure whether the opposite is always helpful. As much as I respect Olia, I don't find her edits of the Wikipedia article very constructive. Before her edit, the article said: ... # 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 lialina wrote: And a remark: Wikipedia, its potential and importance are praised (and used) by every New Media writer, but not many seem to be interested in contributing. Even an important and beloved term like Remediation, Funny, this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_activism is awful. really, really awful. A good example of how some areas of wikipedia are suffering from a lack of participation. It's probably because most media activists are busy posting on their own websites... also of interest is the discussion around the neutrality of the definition of Indymedia. there's a meta-meta example of irony for ya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Independent_Media_Center Maybe the media activism entry on wikipedia would be a good place for some wry critiques of wikipedia? -- 2 fraudulent elections. 2 fraudulent wars. 1 human made environmental disaster. what more will it take? // encrypted mail preferred // gpg key id 0x250E12BF // blog: http://deleteTheBorder.org/lotu5 // http://deleteTheBorder.org http://radioActiveradio.org http://sandiego.indymedia.org http://organicCollective.org # 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 a new definition
Hi I never planned to be an advocate of the term New Media, but - it exists - it was defined in wikipedia as a group of mass media and a chapter in media study. So, I took a chance to define it differently as a field of study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media And a remark: Wikipedia, its potential and importance are praised (and used) by every New Media writer, but not many seem to be interested in contributing. Even an important and beloved term like Remediation, which is well explained and widely used, is represented in Wikipedia by an article on the environmental technique of the same name. I'd like to ask experts to contribute with remarks and improvements and links, and literature to prevent further swelling of the question What is New Media? best olia lialina -- FROZEN NIKI A blog from a cryogenic box http://frozen-niki.org/ # 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
