Re: <nettime> a new definition [7x]

[nettime's collective theorist <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     ctgr-pavu.com <ctgr@free.fr>                                                    

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     adam <adam@xs4all.nl>                                                           

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     martin pichlmair <pi@attacksyour.net>                                           

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     Michael Guggenheim <migug@bluewin.ch>                                           

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     Newmedia@aol.com                                                                

   Re: <nettime> a new definition                                                  
     Andrew Bucksbarg <andrew@adhocarts.org>                                         

   mending wikipedia's holes                                                       
     martin pichlmair <pi@attacksyour.net>                                           



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

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:07:43 +0100
From: ctgr-pavu.com <ctgr@free.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition


Le 7 nov. 05, =E0 23:21, David Golumbia a =E9crit :

>
> This discussion is starting to get interesting. I too agree with=20
> Florian and
> disagree with Olia that Olia's text is not as good as the texts Olia=20=

> replaced. I
> also do not think Olia is keeping to Wikipedia's goal of "neutrality."=20=

> In fact,
> many Wikipedia entries fail to achieve "neutrality."

.....
neutrality is good for swiss !
i'm ready to manage the Chocolate and the Flat Watches department of=20
wikimachin.

- --
OG
- -/ neutrality ? ask chemics about it /-=




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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:04:22 +0100 (CET)
From: adam <adam@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition

>
> The adjective "new" is an interesting sell here.  The spirits of
> corporate products reinventing themselves pops-up unwanted on the
> screen.  There is an energetic burst around the polarity of new and
> old- "new world", "new world order..." a place for prospecting,
> conquering, refuge, freedom, escape...
>


nah, i dont think people really think new is 'new' do they? isnt new media
now a label not a literal definition? like net.art or New Zealand?

adam




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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:31:54 +0100
From: martin pichlmair <pi@attacksyour.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition


> If you need a term, Olia Lialina, please look for a term that  
> relates to the
> object itself, and not the circumstances (time/space). Talk about  
> distributive
> media, digital media, distributive digital media, handheld  
> distributive digital
> media, - whatever - but not "new" and "old" - relating to time. As  
> we all know,
> time passes and changes and therefore slides away, avvoiding final  
> definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media

looks like a lot of work ahead...

lg
martin






attacksyour.net/pi





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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:37:14 +0100
From: Michael Guggenheim <migug@bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition

hi,

a little comment, to add to a really interesting discussion:
what should an encyclopedia do: it should document, not argue. The 
arguments can be left to pamphlets, discussion lists etc.  And if 
meanings of words change, an encyclopedia should document such changes. 
That is, the entry on new media should contain a paragraph that 
explains, that because the term "new media" is a temporal and relative 
term, it was employed since the 1950ies (or maybe even earlier?) to 
designate whatever technology was new at a certain point in time. Then 
you can list all the technologies under review so far.

The nice thing about wikipedia is, that you can update the list, 
because in a few months, the list will look inevitably dated. The 
procedure described above would allow to document the historicity of 
the term. Neither simply insist on the Britannica style-fixity of 
terms, nor on the all-that-is fluid-supermodernism some of the 
discussants.

Also: "new media" is by far not the only term that contains a temporal
element: see for example "avantgarde", "(post-)modern", "futurism" etc.
it is a sign of modernity, that the most important terms to describe
itself are temporal, it's not a new media specialty and not a corporate
complot.

Michael Guggenheim




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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:00:25 EST
From: Newmedia@aol.com
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition



Folks:

Since I first "coined" the term circa 1989 in various reports I wrote
for Wall Street and business audiences and obtained this email address
in 1992 while on the AOL roadshow from Steve Case, perhaps my original
definition would be a curiousity.

New media is whatever replaces television.

That's all there is to it,

Mark Stahlman
New Media Laboratory
New York

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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:22:19 -0500
From: Andrew Bucksbarg <andrew@adhocarts.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> a new definition

For some yes, for others who have formed an existence-occupation  
around production and scholarship with forms of media which have had  
a longer life span- not likely... for them "new" media warms an  
antagonism... very fresh!

ndrew

On Nov 11, 2005, at 4:04 AM, adam wrote:

>>
>> The adjective "new" is an interesting sell here.  The spirits of
>> corporate products reinventing themselves pops-up unwanted on the
>> screen.  There is an energetic burst around the polarity of new and
>> old- "new world", "new world order..." a place for prospecting,
>> conquering, refuge, freedom, escape...
>>
>
>
> nah, i dont think people really think new is 'new' do they? isnt  
> new media
> now a label not a literal definition? like net.art or New Zealand?
>
> adam
>




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

Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:49:51 +0100
From: martin pichlmair <pi@attacksyour.net>
Subject: mending wikipedia's holes


dear nettime,

today, i took the freedom of editing the definitions of "interactive  
media" and "digital media". both of them were horrible and biased. i  
hope i succeeded in setting up a basic text but i welcome everybody  
on the list who is more competent than me in that area (and quite  
some of you should be) to contribute, edit and erase. hopefully these  
terms are less battled than "new media".

hopefully i find some time in the next days and weeks to keep editing  
the whole area around media in wikipedia. it is surprising that no  
one saw that hole (and felt the urge to act) before olia found it.

the digital media section is a bit german (i'm austrian) - some  
internationalisation would surely help.

the big hole i left is the page for "media".

by the way: i reject the subject line "a new definition" because in  
my view wikipedia is not about definitions but about descriptions and  
explanations.

lg
martin





attacksyour.net/pi




#  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