martin pichlmair on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:22:58 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Definitions

i still insist upon not _defining_ but _describing_ it. definitions  
tend to have to sharp borders, while descriptions catch the current  
state of language. additionally, definitions have an aim (see the  
etymology of the word itself) while descriptions open up the discourse.

so, is there any description of new media that goes beyond media  


On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:01 PM, marc wrote:

> - but how will it be re-processed, re-historicized, controlled if  
> there
> is no specific product to define?
> marc
>> Is it really that important to spend all this time and bandwidth
>> defining the term 'new media'? In the end, no matter how anyone
>> defines it, the gods of language are not going to carve it it stone.
>> It will still never be a final, definitive definition and will always
>> be interpreted somewhat differently by each person who uses the term.
>> Whatever it means to you is what it means. Now get back to work and
>> make some new media...
>> R.

#  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: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: