What are the defining aesthetics of art in the networked era? How is mass collaboration changing notions of ownership in art? How does micropatronage change the way artists produce and distribute artwork? The Future of Art begins a conversation on these topics and invites your participation.
“I have frequently been asked about my relationship to the New Media. My answer has always been: New technologies are nothing other than new means to an end. Alone they are of significance; it always depends upon how they are applied. I am against naive faith in progress, glorification of the possibilities of technological developments. Much of what today´s artists produce with New Media is very boring. But I am just as opposed to the deuncination of technology. For me technology in itself is not a category according to which I judge works. This type of categorization is just as outmoded as division into classical art genres (painting, sculpture…). I am interested in the idea of a project; ideally the means of realizing the project should arise from the idea itself.”
Catherine David, “dx and new media“, June 20, 1997
“Media art often suffers from faddism and from a series of misunderstandings. For example, I can’t count the number of times I heard someone (or seen an exhibition) confuse “something weird done with technology” with media art.”
Régine Debatty, 2008
“One problem as far as the acceptance of new media art into the mainstream of the art system is that it has been briefly taken up as a novelty and shown only for its newness. The hype surrounding the technology driving new media art hasn’t helped its long-term engagement with the art world.”
Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook, Rethinking Curating. Art after New Media, 2010