Comment on New Media Conference

Chris has submitted the following comment on the New Media conference that was held in Banff in late September.

This was one of the most prescient presentations at the conference. The comments on disciplinarity and the forces that can influence the emergence of a field like New Media are very timely.

To ‘zoom out’ a bit - it strikes me that what is operating here is not altogether dissimilar from weightier macro-issues such as nationality and race. Bear with me a moment. A person’s citizenship and skin colour can appear factual and definitive, but it is important to remember that these designations are based on abstract concepts that extend from amorphous ideals. Nations have physical boundaries and citizens, yes, but it is not possible to represent the sum total of the ideas about what it means to be of that nation; these ideas are always in flux. Simlarly, there is no such thing as 'White' or 'Black', really. (If one finds it in the mind it has been arbitrarily assigned and can only be temporary).

The reason I bring up these topics in relation to the (perhaps) seemingly unrelated question of whether there is a discipline called New Media is that I suspect there is a similar ethic to all boundary-making. To suggest that “disciplines close their doors both as a defensive measure, but also to preserve the history of the struggle to come into being is to remind us that inscribing a circle defines both an inside and an outside. I believe some of the reticence to accept the newness of New Media is in part a reaction to this ethical question.

At the moment it does appear that New Media has manifestly coalesced around a critical mass of praxis and theory. This is perhaps best evidenced by the simple fact that a large group of people will attend an international conference under the rubric of a printed catalogue at the door, like a flag. But it is important to keep in mind that the designation functions best as a malleable framework for discussions about the stuff that is supposedly 'inside' the circle - the goings-on, the art, the evolution.

This stuff will outlive any discipline, anyway.

Comments

[Ian Wojtowicz]

"To ‘zoom out’ a bit - it strikes me that what is operating here is not altogether dissimilar from weightier macro-issues such as nationality and race."

Then you're talking about old media and old messages. Didn't Bruno Latour say something about how we were never new?

"Nations have physical boundaries and citizens, yes, but it is not possible to represent the sum total of the ideas about what it means to be of that nation; these ideas are always in flux."

"Always in flux" is the crux. What does that flux look like? And how can we even talk about flux when the words we use are also in flux?

"Always in flux" sounds very fluid, but it seems like nations change more through punctuated equilibrium.

"Simlarly, there is no such thing as ‘White’ or ‘Black’, really."

Which is true nonsense. Try going to Harlem and spreading that idea. The realities of those words will hit you in the face.

The problems you're talking about are the problems of categories, language and audience. Structuralism vs. post-structuralism. Modern vs. postmodern.

Have we passed postmodernism yet? Is Derrida truly dead? Or is he "dead"? I'd like to think that after a period of deconstruction would logically follow a period of construction. But is there more deconstruction necessary?

I think it's time to start building again.

Does anyone have an idea of what the foundation looks like?

"The reason I bring up these topics in relation to the (perhaps) seemingly unrelated question of whether there is a discipline called New Media is that I suspect there is a similar ethic to all boundary-making. To suggest that “disciplines close their doors both as a defensive measure, but also to preserve the history of the struggle to come into being��? is to remind us that inscribing a circle defines both an inside and an outside. I believe some of the reticence to accept the newness of New Media is in part a reaction to this ethical question."

Clearly boundary-crossing is a highly charged act, from intra-personal to international. Awareness, consent/able-defense, spontaneous communication and the creation/navigation/managment of trust are all key. And, quite seriously: *humour* too.

Does anyone know any good jokes?