Robert Atkins on 24 Feb 2001 17:04:50 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] re: <nettime> net art history |
Olia Lialiana's comments about interviews seem really off the mark to me. Do interviews dominate critics' output? I don't think so, certainly not based on the huge pile of anthologies about online and digital art that are piled up in my office. Personally, I do both and think there's a place for both. But it's ironic hearing that there are too many interviews, after decades of artists complaining they never get to put their views forth in a direct way. You should also bear in mind, Olia, that there's not that much of a market out there for criticism remunerative enough that it helps pay the bills. Interviews are far less labor-intensive, and often research for later, more in-depth responses. So it's not an either/or situation. More often it's publishing an interview or nothing at all. Cheers, Robert Atkis editor: Artery: The AIDS-Arts Forum <www.artistswithaids.org/artery> media arts editor: The Media Channel <www.mediachannel.org> _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold