The Image (new school for social research) 28th feb, panel recap

So today New School presented a panel with the theme of Image. Summary from website: “”..discuss the functions of images in the arts, technology, and media and the ways in which images shape our understanding of technical innovations and social and political issues.”

Featuring: David Greenberg, Michael Leja, Nicholas Mirzoeff, McKenzie Wark,

If you can’t already tell, I was there mainly for McKenzie Wark (because I had to read his books in undergrad as well as listen to my professors talk about him; I have no shame in stalking him on facebook, and curiousity wins out.) I paid attention to the entire panel though, so here are my brief summaries.

David Greenberg
Green’s article dealt with American presidency and their use of images as a form of activism, with particular reference to Theodore Roosevelt.  Before the 20th Century, American presidency was viewed as mostly an administrative role, and it was the Congress that passed the laws and agendas of the country. Roosevelt, he claims, was the one to change the idea of the office to an active or activist presidency i.e. where the president was a symbol of the people-public, a legislative leader, one with the people’s agenda. He was also the first image president – he coined the term “bully pulpit” after all. He turned the president’s secretary to include managing the press, as well as touring the country by train to give speeches. While press conferences didn’t exist at that time, he invited reporters to talk shop and gossip while he was in the barber, or having lunch and they in turn printed his speeches – literally the beginnings of a presidential media campaign.

Greenberg’s main point is the idea of Image As Action/Action as Image with the example of Roosevelt as the embodiment of “activity” both in the way he was portrayed by media (all the verbing!) as well as his role as the first activist president pushing for an agenda – supposedly the Great Democratic Public, whereby the personality of the president was the vehicle of the pushing.

It’s rather fascinating stuff, I really wish I knew more about American history to comment properly on it. Really enjoyed it though, makes me want to wiki it more

Michael Leja
His was really really interesting – the premise of his talk about about tracing the history of The Image; as in what an image meant over centuries. He divides the image into 3 main components: seeing, thinking and picturing. Using these components he comes up with several definitions of what “an image” meant over different periods in history. I really enjoyed his talk, I’m going to look him up — but I hope that he will add “experiencing” in his component categorising of image as well. I suppose seeing is a form of experiencing, but I’m specifically thinking of Rothko and to some extent Burger; where there are ways of seeing, and there is this idea of something having a “correct” way of seeing to give an experience.

1. From Aristotle —> Image As Mental Activity (Imagination)
———> the ‘false’ vs ‘true’ images
———> Image-mind

2. From Lucretius —> Image As Floating Skin
——> each object continues extudes a ‘skin’ of itself which floats, constantly hitting the eye
——> become popular again during advent of Photography; c/f Balzac who thought layers removed from spectral body and put on to photograph

3. From Descartes —> Image as a Retinal Projection
—–> Light moves into the eye
—–> Spiritual likeness; human-image as being key element to divinity; form made by human hands, image as essential spiritual mediator

4. From  Baudrillard —> Image as Commodity
——-> paused + sold

5.  From ??? —-> Image as an object of suspicion; a weapon
——-> Skepticism (Adorno, Hardt)
——-> battle waged using images

6. Digital Image proliferation —> move from image making to machine image (CV)
—–> “Even as images proliferate, they become less essential to the machine” (Virilio)
——> from CV to retina; the “compression” of images to become machine readable

I actually really really enjoyed this talk. I think it’s because it’s very applicable, and it’s also that tracing the history of ‘the image’ is such a fascinating prospect. I wish he added other things – like the idea of Image as Process, where with the advancement of technology in postproduction fluidity, you have “live editing” (especially in terms of video) where the image is a work-in-progress, constantly repeated until it loses its meaning (like a meme?) Also interesting would be if he addressed experiencing the image, which I mentioned earlier – the shock of the visual or more-than-visual.

Nicolas Mirzoeff
I have kinda a lot of problems with his talk, but I didn’t really know how to articulate it later (so maybe that’s why we crossed-hairs). His talk can’t really summed up easily because it seemed to go everywhere, which really bothered me. There was no central thesis statement to the presentation – not a catchphrase to look for, but a question to encompass The Image.

He began by describing his work on visuality – except he never defines it! He never goes into detail what is visual culture vs. aesthetics vs. image culture which kinda really bothered me. Next he brought up the example of seeing and spaces of seeing, who is seeing what and the control of what is seen and being seen. (example: “Move Along Nothing To See Here” by artist Guo Cai Qiang). He brings up the police as an authority force, and that looking is a form of exchange where we are made to look indirectly so that not to form that exchange.

Looking and being looked at creates images, where poliferation leading to banality of images, where oversaturation has lead to meaninglessness. He brings up the example of Guatanamo Bay images, where the shocking images did nothing to change and was not even brought up during the election. (that’s kinda funny, since panellist Greenway was all about “Image as Action//Action as Image”) OK I follow that……

… and then he does some kind of leap; and goes into a culture of visualisation and military strategising and I’m like: ‘da fuck?!’ He goes on about how Napolean follows the readings of Caryle, who said that those who can visualise can become ‘great men’ (I keep thinking of Aristotle here and his Megalopsuchos; and then Nietszche later with his Ubermensch) and only with flows of visuality can men lead. He uses the examples of biographies in bookshops, and the sales of these “great” figures as an example of how Caryle’s teachings can be still seen today. He calls these practices a ‘forming of complex’ where there is classification (mapping), seperation (walls in Bethlehem) and anesthetisation (military industrial complex, respect for status quo)…… actually I was thinking, a better example rather than just MIC would be the adaptation of military artifacts as a form of wearable design, such as Buzz Rickson’s reproduction of war memorabilia as a fashion statement or how Levi’s 509 were originally based on military uniforms. And these fashion statements forming a kind of ‘tribe’ of trendy wearers, a kind of watered down coolness. And then he talks about counter-culture aesthetics and the art of DIY, and how it compares to the sleekness of industrial product design.

Great! EXCEPT that the whole DIY aesthetic has been appropriated and it is, by itself, a form of aestheticatison JUST AS industrial design is. It’s still a signifier, and it’s not a real resistance against the commodification of culture.  Just because you make it out of cardboard and felt, does not make it anymore “real” than if I printed it on heavyweight french paper. Is the meaning lost to how it is presented? So if I were to present, “FUCK CAPITALISM” on perfectly rounded bevel edged metal sheets, I would be ‘non’ counterculture even though my message was against it? It’s totally baffling, especially since the appropriation of DIY-aesthetic is so readily apparent in hipsters (which isn’t even a new thing) and corporations like Etsy, Ebay and yes, Kickstarter. To be honest it kinda reminds me of how some people tried to push for a ‘maker aesthetic’ as though by wearing the clothes of being a ‘maker’ or ‘hacker’ you could become one; even though you didn’t know programming for shit.

To put to place: ‘most counterculture doesn’t change the framework but simply extends the shelf life of commodity culture, to be one with it‘. And to be perfectly honest, I didn’t even come up with that – it was by Ruby ??? (forgot surname) who was critiquing Bourriad’s concept of Post-Production and Relational Aesthetics. I just changed where ‘post-production’ stood with ‘counter-culture’.

OK I get this, and then….. JUMP! and he goes into climate change. And I’m like ‘da fuck’ part 2. At this point I can’t take the slides seriously anymore, some of his arguements seem balantly ludicruous to me. Climate change as a the main/sole cause of poverty? (which is what he suggested) Climate change as the main reason why more and more African populations are pushed below poverty line? I mean, climate change is a huge issue, but let’s not overlook some other factors like government corruption (!), lack of infrastructure resources, patenting of seed banks forcing small farmers to buy GM seeds, increasing use of bio-fuels leading to less food since it’s being grown as cash crops for fuel, speculation on commodity markets…. and so on. I just. I mean I just can’t. To blame drought and poverty PURELY on climate change is just a neglect of other important and pressing factors.

And then I decided you know, maybe he’s just not very good with presentations. Maybe he’s better one-on-one. I tried asking him about it, like what he thought about appropriation; his response: ‘When one space gets appropriated, then we will run to another space and open new public spaces within them.’ That made sense, kind of – but I was skeptical because I’m used to dealing with tech-shit everyday, and well technology will generally get more and more efficient (remember Engelbert’s prediction? YEA.) I mean, even his examples of OccupyWallStreet relied very heavily on controlled platforms like twitter and facebook as form of organisation, and as the net gets tighter the spaces will become smaller.

And his response was fairly rude to be honest. He implied that I wasn’t invested in the present-future (why wouldn’t I be? I’ll be living a lot longer, and it’s my future he’s talking about) and that my participation was ‘weaker’ than his because I was concerned about my status as a student and visa holder (so does he advocate to NYU and their international students to lose their visas and thereby his salary as tenure? I’ll give up my visa if he’s willing to throw his tenure away) and when I suggested that the Occupy movement was concentrated in North America and Arab nations because of the peculiar concentration of unemployment, large wealth disparity and huge youth population he waved it away even though I gave examples such as Philippines, Indonesia, China and Singapore. And when I said I was from Singapore so I knew what I was talking about, his response: “Well you’re from a fascist dictatorship.”

Well. What can you really say to that? By then I was tired of trying to make peace with this man, and rather offended. My first problem was with his sheer sense of righteousness, that he is infallibly and constantly right – that kind of belief and unwillingness of compromise is not a sign of counterculture or heroics but fundamentalism! This dude is totally a fundamentalist – not in the usual christian right, but in his extreme inability to comprehend other people’s views outside his own. That was a terrifying prospect, especially since this man is an educator. What does he educate I wonder, is he an evangelist in his zeal to convert students to his extremity?

The second problem I have is his constant over-generalising. To write off an entire country as “fascist dictatorship” is to assume that you know every single practice of how the country works and runs, and as much as I wish to escape the authoritarianism of Singapore I would never be so quick to judge on that. It’s akin to me saying: “Americans are all stupid and obese”. I suppose it’s inevitable that he thinks so, just as he thinks that all of Africa suffers from climate change induced poverty (which also begs the question – Africa is a continent, not a country, so which countries are actually suffering from drought? As far as I know, Mauritius, an African country, is still doing rather well for itself.) I’m not really angry, just kinda shocked at how someone who claims to be open-minded and into activism can be so narrow in his views.

McKenzie Wark
I knew what he would be talking about, since he writes about Situationists and is teaching a class on Situationist/Letterist International. It’s okay, because I really like the Situationists as well, although sometimes I wish we could move away from them – from ‘walking the city’ to ‘flaneur’ to ‘détournement’. He started by giving a brief overview of Situationists, in particular Guy De Bord and focused how Situationists and their understanding as Image as a form of Systems – where the appearance (theatrical sense) formed a spectacle.

[offtopic]
I think how he feels about Guy de Bord is exactly how I feel about Deleuze. I’ve been reading and writing about him since undergrad, and I can’t decide whether I love him or hate him but it always seems like I go back talking about him.
[/offtopic]

Actually what I really enjoyed was how he defined ‘détournement’. I’ve come across it in Deleuze and other stuff, and have usually defined it as ‘an extraction of alternate meaning; the forming of resistance or appropriation from capitalist culture’ He defines it differently however, as: “a hijacking, a correction in the direction of hope.” which adds a kind of emotional/political layer that my definition didn’t have. Appearances, can be summarised as ‘that which appears is good, that which is good appears’ where the system of appearances is one of production to ‘appear’. (I keep thinking, would manifest be correct? how about rule 34?)

He went into culture next, about the rise of culture commons and how the Situationists imagined it – but not the corporations that would farm the data as well. Then he brought up the usual suspects – the computer as a form of architecture, disinterested in content but only in the channeling of it (control society 101? platform politics?), or as he said: ‘[computers only interested]… more bits!” and how this kind of mass production of mass media has created a kind of meta-media, where:

media—->meta-media<—->accessing you

So by participating in media, you also give it the power to access your data and personal information; the ‘space of controlling content’ would be where our future battles’ at. He also touched briefly on the future; that perhaps we would progress to an aesthetic economy where the appearance, or the aesthetic value would be a mark of ‘better’ or ‘quality’ and then he and Luja mentioned the term ‘beauty’ briefly – which was kinda interesting because ‘beauty’ (in Kantian sense anyway) is always a human characteristic in the way sublime is not.

My question, posed to the panel was how to reconcile image proliferation (and the meaningless of it) with repetition – where only with repetition, creates difference. Through difference, is forming-identity

The answer I got – wasn’t bad, but not really satisfactory? Wark answered it by saying that artwork or images need to don’t need to be the ‘best’ but rather it is the exemplary piece and cited Warhol and his multitude of screenprints. Later I approached him again, and got a better answer (well it’s a public panel with timelimits after all) and I think he agreed? with Deleuze that it’s the repetition that really makes it count, and we went off tangent to other things like the problems with prototyping as an unsustainable iterative process.

[offtopic]
you know when you really idolise someone, meet them in real life and is disappointed? well, I was totally shocked that he really is as awesome as his writing is, and totally a cool guy.
[/offtopic]

….. and guess what???? I got a free book *AND* an autograph too. omg fangirl!moment Dave Carroll is probably laughing his brains out right now, but it’s OK (lol)


yah man, brb stanning harder than ever rn.

Advertisements

Enter prototype

I decided to do this prototyping task differently. Instead of iterating an object, I wanted to iterate an experience. We always concentrate on prototyping a task, a component or some kind of user-related aspect but we don’t really think about what a prototype is – which more than just a sample or pre-production; but rather the object that would never be “shown”, the unfinished piece, the work-in-progress

So I came up with an idea, that instead of iterating an object ( a smaller or draft version of what my final object would be) to instead iterate a feeling. As in, a smaller scaled version of the experience. It sounds totally contrary because I’m obsessed with Sublime, how do you scale down what is supposed to be sublime? (apparently, you can)

ta-da, the tripe lamp! I took scraps of honeycomb beef tripe, treated it like leather and stitched it together. Afterwards I heavily scented the area with a mix of artificial pomegranate spray and vanilla essence to “lure” people to come in and view the work. My idea was to see whether the complex fascination/revulsion would play off, as a prelude to the larger underwater lighting piece (which hopefully would be pushed between sheer terror and adrenaline rush and All Kinds Of Good/Bad/Good/Bad Feelings).

And actually it worked; like fairly well. The best results were in people unfamilar with offal and organ, and some of the responses really interested me. I took a pool of 7 “user testers” (is it even user testing, when they aren’t using anything? environment testing perhaps?) Everyone fell for the scent trap; everyone touched it. Only one person (that would be Dave) guessed accurately what the material was. Actually the scent trap was so effective that even after I put away the set-up, I had people walking in, looking around, then walking out several times. A lot of people peered in as well, which is rather fascinating. I wonder which comes first, the scent or the visual? Like some kind of speed test. I’m putting my bets on scent actually, because visual information is a lot harder to digest. (in particular I’m thinking about how people know that food is expired, even before checking for mold)

Some responses [paraphrased from memory]:
L: “It reminds me of Nazis, because during the holocaust they used bodies with tattoos, and made them into lampshades.”
J1: “[she also mentions Nazis]…. the problem with using body or organic material is most people will associate it with the Holocaust. Everything from bone to hair used by them and its something conventionally taught in [American] schools.”
D: “It doesn’t smell like tripe at all; how is it more than an air freshener?”
J2: “It looks really good, like some kind of product. It doesn’t look disgusting at all. You should do an entire series with it.”
S: “It makes you think about the objects you have at home, where it comes from. I didn’t recognise it was stomach lining because it was so highly treated.”
J3: “Where did you buy it from?”
F: “That’s amazing how you made it look like that, I thought it was wax or some kind of sponge. Done on a larger scale, it could look really cool.”

The most common question I got was: “where did you buy it from?” [ans: Chinatown wet markets] and what really fascinated me was people kept touching and poking at it, trying to figure out how I included the scent in (one person actually thought there was a mechanism in the lamp that made it an air freshener). All of the responses had some kind of “automatic” disgust (I got a really good “eugh!” from J3; and S was entirely grossed out) when told it was made out of cow stomach lining. To be honest I kinda expected the response, and was glad that my hypothesis turned out correct? (I guess all that reading theory was useful after all)

I don’t think I’ll make this my major studio, however tempting it is. The point of the exercise was to create a one-off prototype, nothing more. Anyway if you’re curious, here is the process of creating your own tripe-lamps. I suggest forking out a bit more cash ($13) to buy the whole uncut piece instead of being cheap and buying scraps ($4) like what I did.

1.Start by rinsing the slab of tripe with very cold water diluted with vinegar. Get as much of the dirt, hair and particles trapped in the honeycomb. Trim as much of the fat away as you can (it’s the white gooey stuff on underside)
2. In a giant tureen, put salted concentrate (80%water+20%salt) to a roiling boil. Dunk your slab of tripe in, lower the heat until it’s a gentle simmer. Cook it out for 10mins.
3. Leave it to air dry for 5 days OR cheat technique: heat oven to 300F, put your tripe on a wirerack stretched out (if it’s big, secure with safety pins) with a dripping tray below. Cook for 1~2hrs until dry and pliant (imagine leather)
4. Spray with antibacterial and scent it however you wish.

cross-sections

So an update from the previous post –

So Lucas and I contacted the company that manufactured the epoxy, since we wondered whether it was the plexiglass particles or it being in a non-vaccum that caused it to bubble so violently. Apparently it was because of moisture, since we didn’t check if the sawdust was completely dry before using it. Lesson learnt: dry wood before mixing it into any plastic or resin mix

Results:

Detailed shots:

Admittedly the exterior looks kinda gross (I keep thinking it looks like nose booger) but the interior is pretty cool, and polished surface looks really different. The 1:1 gives the most sponge-like air pattern, while the 1:1.5 looks like dry bone marrow and 1:2 looks like sourdough bread.  It’s surprisingly strong material (we had to cut it through twice for the thicker parts with a table saw) but quite brittle? It’s really light too. The addition of sawdust does change the weight significantly, but because the resin is so light it doesn’t really matter anyway. I think this would be a good material if you’re trying to achieve a giant cork-like texture or some kind of organic material (bone, sponge, mucus etc) It might look really cool in a large-scale sculpture

Anyway besides using 550 epoxy, I’ve been exploring other options as well such as Ecopoxy Systems. The company looks pretty slick, but I had so much trouble communicating with them (never replied emails, calls at the worst hours and their credit card system is taken over the phone) However their testimonials were pretty good, especially for their UV600 series so I bought a quart of it to test out. Not only is it enviromentally friendly, but it has a decent working time (20~mins); is UV resistent; dries clear and can be mixed with different retardents and hardeners to achieve different consistencies. Also their technical documentation is fantastic

So, prep work:

Hand-cutting hickory chips for the resin. The sawdust was really too tiny to give much of a feel or texture, it basically just had a woody colour but no real wood feel. So we decided to use larger chips, as well as dry them on our own (instead on relying on outside sources). First we bought a bag of wood chips from home depot, then baked it for 2hrs~ at 350F with a half-open door to prevent combustion. Then I slowly trimmed them down into smaller inch/half inch pieces so that they would pour better. I might bake them for a 2nd round again before using, just to ensure that all the moisture is really absolutely gone. I’m hoping to line them like a base, pour resin, line again, pour etc so it creates a lovely stacked effect especially if they’re all laid in same direction. Could possibly be pretty……. also smells a lot better too!

there she sleeps

Open Uni’s underwater lamp
DIY underwater bulb (halogen)
DIY underwater bulb (LED tubes) (they look like florescents!!)

actually I was thinking, if I keep it outside of people’s hands i.e. no one does a full body dive into the tank – I could simply seal up standard lightbulbs, and use the distilled water + telsa coil trick (as in, submerge the bulbs before switching it on, therefore heat is generated over time with water as the coolent, so no glass explosions). I’m really *really* tempted to do a full length telsa coil under water though, make it very tightly spiraled and no casing at all (just pure water) but I’m not sure what the fire marshal will say to that!

I’m not very keen on using superbrights LEDs, because they are kinda small which defeats the purpose of visual terror (idk, in my head I have traditional glassblown edison lightbulbs) I might consider using them as a ‘base’ lighting because it needs to be purple highlights (like the aquarium UV types) to mix with the incandescent yellow hmmmm also I need to match it with the overall thing too. Also I need to buy some bleach, and maybe machine oil; there’s a particular smell I want to re-create except I’m not sure if it’s actually creatable.

also we have some kind of prototype due next week, and since you can’t really prototype art (hahahahaha… just no) I have a pretty good idea of what I can prototype, which, what can I say, involves quite a lot of salt hahahaa….

[eyedeer] babelmaker

with repetition, creates difference.

music; the jumping notes, a loop, a line. feeding it into ah-ee-ii-kii-oh do we make it polytonal or language? babbling babelspeak, formless noises that sound like words are not words, words fed and spat on; out-comes. take a paragraph and out comes music; take music and vomit prose. the colours: yellow, white, green, white – colour of lime and stucco; raised bar – why does the white have the texture of nutella? spread the sound, echoic; remember the mechanical birds? maybe cars are also birds. no. cars are cats cos engines purr, not sing. what sings? singer sewing machines. hahahahaha, maybe. maybe it’s like sewing; a babel that emboriders? do we do loop sitch count sitch the clacking as your feet presses forward? a different kind of composing. d-motion? flashing of blue sequins, wrong colours. you want it white and lime, maybe aqua? a breaking loop. where can i find loops that break down? maybe i’ll make my own loop, that breaks. a loop that takes perfectly positive polsively pious prose and …… [ ! ]

yeaaaaaaaaaaa let’s make a babelmaker for the deleuze class! (and not write 13 pages hurhurhurhur)

<> or why new media art is a lie

Maya binary not working! my computer crashes! don’t understand how to do extrusions using booleans! hey it’s tots OK man, cos KT’s new album sounds khjdashjkklas amazeballs like the best of 90s eurotrash techno with chip music and the superslick sound of manufactured pop. In the beginning I felt kinda awkward in Parsons cos it seems that everyone has extreme cultured music taste. Not only do I have no taste, but also extreme bad taste. I’m one of the few people (that I know of) that have Paris Hilton’s Stars That Shine as well as her other discography. I also watch Eurovision religiously. Most people talk about musical “soul”, but I like my music like Jello – as artificial as possible, with vivid colourings and MANY MANY flavours. And I like it all, unironically. I don’t get liking something ironically cos I buy CDs, and hey money is money y’know. I wouldn’t waste money on irony D:

And since the maya work that I was doing just crashed, let’s look at some cool stuff:

Jon Rafman’s The Nine Eyes of Google Street View:

Basically it’s a project showing the bloopers from Google Street View, totally neat! My favourite one is the gas mask man crawling out from the underbush lol

Ian Burns’ Xerox Book (1968)

This is one of my favourite works ever – in relation to design and technology. It’s one of those works that you’re like: “goddamn why didn’t I think of it?? I wish I did it!!” because it’s so brilliantly simple and yet encapsulates everything from Deleuze to machine-technology so perfectly. Basically what Burns did was take a blank sheet of paper, and photocopy it 100 times on a xerox machine. As each piece was photocopied and re-photocopied, the machine began to read errors like lines, black spots etc until finally the machine (remember, 1960s) broke down and you got a blank black page. Literally, “difference and repetition“. He was part of the Art & Language group along with Sol Levitt – and for me, groups like these were really “new media art” even if they didn’t define themselves by it.

I guess that’s one of my main gripes about the word “new media art”. What is new media art? Is there a movement associated with it? Is there a collective force, or is it a scattered distribution? What is with the term “new” – when groups like Fluxus, Kinetic/Constructivist, Futurists and Art&Language exist?

The problem with the term “new media art” is the word “media”. Art is almost never defined by a medium, it’s usually conceived of based on a concept. That’s why
“new media art” remains flunky and vague even though the term has been tossed around for years. It’s because there is no depth to it, it’s shallow and silly to define your entire body of work just based on ONE medium. Most artists I know work with several as their career progresses, so by using the term “new media artist” they are thereby limiting themselves to what people would conceive of as “new media” and what new media is, is usually relational to the period they live in.

So in my generation, “new media art” would be work with apps and 3-d wall projections. With someone 6-10 years older, “new media art” might refer to the code-bombing a la Jodi With someone 15-20+ years older, “new media art” might be on television or broadcast.

It really bothers me because art is always driven by concept, with technology as a support not the other way round. Like why did Monet and Renoir push towards Plein-air painting? It wasn’t only the question of painting “to life, in air” but also because technology afforded the first paint tubes! Before the 19th century, paints had to ground paints in bottles, then mix with a binder (usually gum); then painted with turpentine and linseed oil. With the advent of paint tubes came the portability and convenience – now they could paint anywhere! If anywhere, why not plein-air?

So if you *really* want to push for “new media art”, well – then the Impressionists would be new media artists too. How do you reconcile that with your digital-only shtick?

Like the two examples I have above – what ties them together despite their differences in age isn’t the medium or “media” but the examination of media. Perhaps it would be much more appropriate to call this “medium art”, because it doesn’t just use media but questions the qualities of the medium itself.

For me, the interest in new media art is the traces of it. Art history has always been viewed through the lens of personages and movements, why not view it through the lens of “new media art”? Trace the origins of each movement with the growth of technology – the Impressionists was only one example. It’s fascinating to think, of this spectre of “technology” and “new media” hanging over the traditional (positivist?) mode of Art History, an unexamined haunting….. what will happen, when it’s brought to light?