[Nettime-bold] Re: <thingist> Élysée of Digital Art

[Terrence Kosick <kosick@sprint.ca>]

Terrence writes;

Thats it! I am coining Digitally Impaired.

"The Austin Museum of Digital Art (AMODA) is a venue
         for digital art, a physical space (not a web page), where
         digital art can be viewed by the general public. "

T.

Peter von Brandenburg wrote:

> Dear Joseph & al,
>
> The funny thing is that these aren't even dreadful definitions.  However I am
> personally a bit more draconian -- I would call all this "digitally assisted" or
> in some cases even "digitally referent".  In my view d/art must either itself be
> digital in form/delivery or be the output of what can *only* be a digital
> process.
>
> Btw, what's w/ this AMoDA place?  I couldn't find their Inaugural Exhibition...
> no part of it is on-line?
>
> best,
>
> Blackhawk.
>
> Joseph Nechvatal wrote:
>
> > The Austin Museum of Digital Art (http://www.amoda.org/) defines Digital Art.
> >
> > What is Digital Art?
> >
> > The Austin Museum of Digital Art defines digital art as art that uses digital
> > technology in any of three ways: as the product, as the process, or as the
> > subject. These are further described below. This description is not intended
> > to exclude but to encompass as much as is reasonable. We seek to expand the
> > public's definition of digital art (and our own) in order to appreciate the
> > truly vast and far-reaching impact of digital technology on art, on the world,
> > and on ourselves.
> >
> > Product
> >
> > Art whose final form is digital in nature is digital art. These are works that
> > are viewed on a computer, such as software or web sites. This also includes
> > works that use nonstandard hardware, such as electronics and
> > robotics. The hardware need not be functional: a sculpture made of integrated
> > circuit boards could be considered digital art. We feel that the expressive
> > capabilities of this new medium have only been touched upon, and so we are
> > interested in seeing how artists express themselves through it.
> >
> > Process
> >
> > Art that was created using digital technology in the process of its creation
> > would also be digital art. Obvious examples include computer-generated
> > animation, synthesized music, and computer-designed sculpture. While these
> > works might be presented in traditional media (e.g. film, audio tape and
> > marble), their production was facilitated by the use of digital technology.
> > Less obvious examples include: a painting designed by visitors to a web page;
> > a play which reenacts an e-mail exchange; or music that samples sounds from an
> > arcade game. These are still works which could not exist without digital
> > technology to aid their production.
> > We are interested in how digital technology is altering the production of art.
> > This alteration can be subtle or profound, either by impacting traditional
> > production or allowing novel approaches.
> >
> > Subject
> >
> > Finally, art that addresses or discusses digital technology is also digital
> > art. A painting depicting a woman using an ATM machine, a bust of Alan Turing,
> > and song about chat rooms could all be considered digital art.
> > Digital technology need not be the focus of the piece, or even mentioned
> > intentionally. We are interested in works that, through their subject, say
> > something about digital technology and its impact on the world.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by Peter von Brandenburg <blackhawk@thing.net>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold