Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media? [4x]

["nettime's media monger" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Table of Contents:

   New Media Defined (def. 4 appended)                                             
     "Sverko, Adriano" <adriano.sverko@scala.net>                                    

   Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?                                             
     Newmedia@aol.com                                                                

   Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?                                             
     human being <human@electronetwork.org>                                          

   Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?                                             
     noah wardrip-fruin <noah@queeg.com>                                             



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:15:44 +0200
From: "Sverko, Adriano" <adriano.sverko@scala.net>
Subject: New Media Defined (def. 4 appended)

4. scrim-centric new media (a continuation of a previous post). One area I
did not cover is how could we define the term "new media" minus a bit-wise
consciousness whenever we are speaking? Even when we are not speaking
<"speaking" selected intentionally, as in, speech act> about computers we
CAN talk about multimedia. We DO NOT NEED to associate new media in the
mindshare of bit-oriented discourse, because it started earlier, with
Picasso. Or maybe the Mexican muralist, David Siqueiros, or Croatian and
French naivism.

Picasso et al.
==============
Picasso, et al, slapping down newspapers into the oil base, or old cardboard
or protest posters. I am not an art historian so someone else needs to fill
in detail. But I have seen the beginning of mixing media in the 1920s or
1930s, which needed adhesion, yet was executed by painters.

Naivism
- -------
Painters, never classically trained (almost illegal to call yourself an
artist in Central Europe without a fine arts degree... he he), painting on
glass, strawberries the size of pumpkins and anthropomorphic trees, drawn to
be eery like Halloween itself. And this would be drawn on the back side of
the glass, thus in reverse, so the viewing side in an art gallery would be
glass. This is 1960s, 1970s stuff, before PC revolution, yet mind bending in
a way that is bitwise and a breeze on the desktop.

David Siqueiros
/////////////
And the third, Siqueiros, actually making his own substances/compounds,
which could jutt out of the wall, at times half a meter, on figures and
impressions of humanity or womanhood or disease - these silhouettes of man's
condition, sometimes 20 or 30 meters tall or long. This is 1950s, 1960s,
primarily. And is a part of Mexican muralist history that one learns in
Humanities classes there, already in primary school.

These revolutionary events are in the mass culture. That is why I am able to
find, when I walk into the Budapest graffiti zones, a poster slapped up at a
metro station or on a tram, with graffiti sprayed over a photo image of a
mountain range any extreme sports lover would cream for. And then, on a
second look, you notice that the poster is designed for graffiti to be
sprayed on it. In fact, THERE IS graffiti art already on it, meaning that
the poster was printed with self-abuse, celebrating the act of modification,
personalization, claiming the right to own, claiming the right to copyright
without law and time and money, being cool. New media just makes it faster
to get the expression done.

I think new media was introduced before the PC revolution. The PC revolution
helped business notice it.

Adriano Sverko
Sustainable Development Videographer
CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER 
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, or the person
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.  All un-intended recipients are
obliged to delete this message and destroy any printed copies.  This email
contains no warranty or representation as to the accuracy and completeness
of any of the information and implies no commitment thereto.  Please be
aware that legally binding obligations can only arise by written instrument
signed by authorized representatives.  Scala Business Solutions N.V. and all
entities within the Scala Group exclude any liability for direct or
consequential loss from use or reliance upon this e-mail.


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:01:02 EDT
From: Newmedia@aol.com
Subject: Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?

Noah:

What's fascinating is that NONE of this discussion places New Media in direct 
contrast to TELEVISION -- or the Old Media (yes, "television" is many 
mediums!)

The CRT is crucial here, since it is the *sensory* effects caused (formally) 
by experiencing a CRT (i.e. something akin to a "massage") -- whether on a TV 
or on a computer monitor, *regardless* of what is being "displayed" -- that is 
really really OLD . . . and in need of being "replaced" by something that is 
NEW.

It's as if people haven't figured out that the PRINTING PRESS was "replaced" 
in the 19th century by a succession of ELECTRIC MEDIA and the the 
"electric-age" has itself now been abandoned.  Has it occured to anyone that we are 
already post-electric?

It's as if people are either taking for granted that TELEVISION will forever 
dominate our environment or they are frantically wishing that this will be the 
case due to their (subliminal?) allegiance to the BOOB TUBE.  

I suppose that some people truly enjoy being FAT, DUMB and HAPPY!!   Or, 
maybe they'd just prefer that the PROLS eat too much, lose their wits and OD on 
non-linear video editing all day long.

I'll betcha that people even think that PERSONAL COMPUTERS will still be in 
vogue 10 years from now!!

Sheesh,

Mark Stahlman
New York City




------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:16:16 -0500
From: human being <human@electronetwork.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?


  thus: new media is a proprietary term for personal use?


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:44:33 -0400
From: noah wardrip-fruin <noah@queeg.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> What *ARE* New Media?

At 9:01 AM -0400 10/18/03, Newmedia@aol.com wrote:
>What's fascinating is that NONE of this discussion places New Media in direct
>contrast to TELEVISION -- or the Old Media (yes, "television" is many
>mediums!)

It's true, though that kind of discussion has taken place. Take 
Stuart Moulthrop's 1991 essay "You Say You Want a Revolution?" 
Moulthrop argued that a world-wide hypertext publishing network (say, 
something like the web) would be better viewed as a competitor with 
other screen based media (especially television) than with books. At 
the time his was seen as a strange argument ("hypertext" is a kind of 
writing, right?) but not so much any more. And, of course, 
Moulthrop's writing followed that of Ted Nelson, who has been writing 
about new media vs. television for decades.

Noah


------------------------------

#  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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net