New Media Art

Posted by Dooley Le Cappellaine | Mon Jun 3rd 2002 1 a.m.

Agence TOPO
T (514) 286-4280
http://www.AgenceTOPO.qc.ca

http://www.lecappellaine.com

Mail To: Dooley Le Cappellaine, 284 Mott St #9K, New York, New York, 10012

" Technophobia" ... in the (Web Site and) CD ROM of that name by digital
artist Dooley Le Cappellaine.,
the word refers to new media that immerses viewers in various phobias,
The Object? To demonstrate how this format broadens our perceptions of
"real" and "delusionary" fears - this work reminds us of the link between
terror and beauty....."

Wired Magazine ,
Norman Weinstein.

You can also buy "TECHNOPHOBIA"
($25, plays on Mac and Windows)
directly at:

In London:

The International Center of Contemporary Art , Bookshop
12 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH
United Kingdom
t:44 171 930 0493
f:44 171 873 0051
video@icarts.demon.co.uk

In New York:

DIA Center of the Arts
Bookshop
548 West 22nd Street
New York New York 10011
Ph (001) (11) (212) 9895566

Printed Matter
535 West 22nd Street
New York New York 10011
Phone (001) (11) (212) 925 0325.

In Australia:

The Museum of Contemporary Art
MCA Bookshop
PO Box R1286
Sydney
1223 Australia
Tel: (011) (61) (29) 250 8458
www.mca.com.au
  • Rhizomer | Sun Oct 29th 2006 7:19 p.m.
    In your opinion, is it possible to argue that new media art does not have to be linked to technology? If so, how?
  • Jason Van Anden | Mon Oct 30th 2006 4:26 a.m.
    This is a pretty abstract question - for instance, I consider paint a
    technology. The whole "new media" term seems a little ill fated,
    like what happens when the next new thing comes along.

    All that being said ... it might be more helpful if you provided an
    example of "new media" that does not link to technology - this way
    there could be a point of reference we might discuss.

    i++

    On Oct 29, 2006, at 9:19 PM, <jlm58@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > In your opinion, is it possible to argue that new media art does
    > not have to be linked to technology? If so, how?
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Thu Nov 2nd 2006 9:39 p.m.
    In as much as new media art is a philosophy rather than a medium, then it's safe to say that work that includes "post-net" structural components into it can do the trick, ie:

    - community based art projects, where the audience is a "user" or participant
    - collaborative art projects, particularly over time or space

    So a lot of pre-digital art from the 60's counts, in my definition, as new media. Technology is just a natural evolution to the "new" perceptions of engaging media as it was back in the day.

    Two cents.

    -er.

    <jlm58@hotmail.com> on Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 10:19 PM -0500 wrote:
    >In your opinion, is it possible to argue that new media art does not have to be linked to technology? If so, how?
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Your Reply