This article investigates the current condition of new media art in Britain, examining how cuts to arts funding have affected the art form's infrastructure and capacity for survival and growth. It considers media art in relation to other contemporary art practices, particularly in relation to its inherent capacity for enhanced and sustained user participation, and asks why it is that, though government agendas favour participatory art as 'socially useful', media art appears to have been hit harder than other art forms. The article puts forward four reasons that could explain this paradox, and argues the importance of the survival of new media art, not as isolated practices invited to exist within mainstream contexts, but as a distinct art form.
KeywordsMedia art died but nobody noticed. 1
One: an art pronounced deadIn a review of the Transmediale 2006 Festival, Armin Medosch described how 'media art died but nobody noticed' when the festival that year decided to 'silently' drop the term 'media art' from its title. 'For the diligent observer of the field of media art this does not really come as a surprise', Medosch argued, 'but merely represents the ongoing confusion and blatant opportunism which marks contemporary production in the digital culture industry.' 2 Medosch was proven right in identifying and highlighting a continuous trend that was still to deliver severe blows in this field of practice internationally, and in the United Kingdom most notably. This 'silent drop' of a distinct term by a festival distinguished in this very practice was followed by the considerably more vocal closure of the Live and Media Arts Department at London's Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) at the end of November 2008. Its then Artistic Director, Ekow Eshun, generated heated debate among the press, numerous mailing lists and communities of practice when he declared as the reason for this closure that, 'in the main, the art form lacks depth and cultural urgency'. 3 In offering his damning report for a whole range of practices, Eshun did not distinguish between live and media arts, which he conflated as a single art form, nor did he articulate his reasons for pronouncing both forms superficial and culturally irrelevant at the same time.'New media art' -a field also known as 'media art(s)' and 'digital art(s)', among other denominationshas long been contested not only as a term, but also as a distinct genre of artistic practice. In 2001 Stefanie Syman, in an article about the exhibition Bitstreams at the Whitney Museum (New York, 2001), suggested that '[j]ust as dot.com was always a fatuous category, lumping together media, corporate services, and infrastructure companies into one "industry," digital art is a category of convenience that should be retired'. 4 And so, it seems, it