Curating new media art ?

Recently asked by a number of people about curating art, I find the topic was raised due to the demanding need of art programming in Hong Kong and there are some very interesting perspectives raised on the topics in the "International symposium on curating new media art" in March 2006

And this discussion two years ago will be particularly interesting to my fellow academia friends.

Paul Domela opened the floor for discussions by provoking Inke with the question: Should there be a separate discipline of new media curating? Yes and no, maintained Inke true to her talk’s dialectics. Curating media art as a field doesn’t make sense because curating in any field of contemporary art is essentially the same, yet the richness of activities and formats in media art make it possible to reflect on the way technology impacts on society. Pierre-Yves also chipped in by asserting that neither is media art dead (as prompted by Trebor) nor is the museum concerned solely with dead art. It is the role of the museum to ask (and try to answer) questions about how to present and preserve media art.

Amanda McDonald Crowley raised the issue of which institutions are actually collecting new media art? Just a handful: ZKM, Karlsruhe; Ars Electornica Centre, Linz and ICC, Tokyo which is closing down its collecting programme. Charlie Gere seconded Amanda’s statement by reminiscing about his father who was a ‘Keeper’ of art in a museum, alluding to the traditional custodial role for curators in museums. Charlie also talked about his own involvement in Cache, a project for preservation of early computer art. Museums involved were Science Museum, Victoria & Albert but NOT the likes of Tate – a reminder that there are issues around the status of this practice as art.

Inke also stated that museums only present a tip of the iceberg, for example video art is one section of media art which has made it into the institution as it works primarily visually. But what about the 85% of the media art iceberg which doesn’t make it into the museum? Different institutions are perhaps necessary, smaller, working more flexibly, and focusing on temporary projects. Alongside, broadening of the appeal and impact of the small field of new media was another strategy discussed. For me this is a clear case of a deja-vu as the issue of small-scale vs. large institutions and their role in fostering visibility and status for media art practices was widely debated in the Curating New Media Seminar at the BALTIC, Gateshead five years ago.

A question from the audience suggested that this is perhaps a problem of the white cube rather than media art as such. However, we still seem to be struggling with viable models of how to mediate or curate that which is not visible. In response, Inke referred to Makrolab as a successful interface for the immaterial information sphere; in materialising the data which normally remains invisible; as a mobile research area for the activities which are going on including performative texts and communication streams from satellites.

Sarah Cook and Pierre-Yves rounded off the discussion with the observation that more and more new galleries and museums seem to have no remit to collect: including the soon to open MOMA Brussels. It may come down to individuals donating or loaning their private collections to museums, as happened for example to certain past movements in art, such as Fluxus and mail art.

I noticed that in the discussion Tokyo ICC may have closed the acquisition but the space was reopened in June 2006.