Digital Canon: Second open discussion
After the initial workshop at Transmediale 2018 in which LIMA opened the discussion about the canonisation of digital art, LIMA has continued to collaborate with experts in the field to delineate this emerging digital art canon. During this second open discussion, one of the major conversations was about how to create a red thread throughout this canon—if we are talking about Dutch digital art, how are we defining what is ‘digital’ and what is ‘Dutch’?
Edwin van der Heide, Darko Fritz, Peter Mertens, Martijn van Boven, Gaby Wijers, Dieter Daniels, Sanneke Huisman, Axelle Van Wynsberghe, Anne Nigten.
Raised questions and concerns
- How can the digital canonisation project be better structured around a framework that serves LIMA’s project strategy and objectives?
- What do we really mean by ‘digital’? Should we stick with a more traditional framework, or think about digital culture in the broader sense?
- How does digital art alter the concept of a ‘canon’ in the first place?
- How are we to differentiate between what works truly qualify as ‘digital’ art? Must they have ‘digital’ components, or simply be influenced by / have influenced ‘digital culture?
- Should we include electronic art within the canon?
- There are concerns over the overlapping fields included in the canon. To which degree should the canon aim to be interdisciplinary; including works from the sound and music field, for example?
- What does the list represents as a ‘Dutch canon’? Should ‘Dutch’ works be measured by the time that the artist spent in the Netherlands, and should collaborations be counted?
- Could this canonisation project additionally result in a (traveling) exhibition?