BIO
Curt Cloninger is an artist, writer, and Associate Professor of New Media at the University of North Carolina Asheville. His art undermines language as a system of meaning in order to reveal it as an embodied force in the world. His art work has been featured in the New York Times and at festivals and galleries from Korea to Brazil. Exhibition venues include Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), Granoff Center for The Creative Arts (Brown University), Digital Art Museum [DAM] (Berlin), Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (Chicago), Black Mountain College Museum + Arts Center, and the internet. He is the recipient of several grants and awards, including commissions for the creation of new artwork from the National Endowment for the Arts (via Turbulence.org) and Austin Peay State University's Terminal Award.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]
t wrote:
the point was that one who's main
> objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> paintings etc.
...i think of
> exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> essential nature of the net in it's present state.
&
marisa wrote:
> ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> "other" artists are conceptless...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
curt writes:
we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
"representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
converging, and all these different artists from all these different
perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
_
_
the point was that one who's main
> objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> paintings etc.
...i think of
> exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> essential nature of the net in it's present state.
&
marisa wrote:
> ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> "other" artists are conceptless...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
curt writes:
we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
"representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
converging, and all these different artists from all these different
perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
_
_
Re: Re: Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]
t:
who are these entrenched
> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
curt:
part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
(nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.
t:
> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
> may be).
curt:
I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
t:
The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
> it's essential nature is networked communication.
curt:
As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
http://www.lab404.com/media/
Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
peace,
curt
_
_
who are these entrenched
> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
curt:
part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
(nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.
t:
> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
> may be).
curt:
I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
t:
The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
> it's essential nature is networked communication.
curt:
As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
http://www.lab404.com/media/
Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
peace,
curt
_
_
Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]
t:
> But one of the most talked about and
> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.
curt:
alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.
t:
> the visual has been in the
> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
> the net.
>
> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.
curt:
Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never be
hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely what
makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory medium.
Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean superior
art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying Saucer
Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all gloriously
4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.
I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
what can you do? it's the web.
> But one of the most talked about and
> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.
curt:
alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.
t:
> the visual has been in the
> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
> the net.
>
> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.
curt:
Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never be
hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely what
makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory medium.
Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean superior
art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying Saucer
Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all gloriously
4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.
I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
what can you do? it's the web.
Re: Re: what is the best work on the Web done with Flash?
So far in this thread, Mr. Lichty seems the most perspicacious. I'm
always amazed at the sort of patronizing,
look-what-the-cat-dragged-in reaction that net artists have toward
Flash. The tenor of the dialogue usually runs like, "Could this be
art? Do you think so? Really? No! Could it be?"
Miltos Manetas forms the Electronic Orphanage around something as
inconsequential as "works done in flash," and it's greeted as a novel
movement. Even Lev Manovich gets all happy writing a piece about
Flash paradigmatics.
The implicit assumption that a Java applet is a more legitimate net
art medium than an .swf file struck me as bizarre the first time I
heard it, and it still seeems very parochial to me. One may just as
fruitfully have begun this thread by asking, "what is the best work
on the Web done in Java?" Pieces by golan levin, casey reas, martin
wattenberg, and bradford paley come immediately to mind; and then I'd
be hard-pressed to come up with more. For a NET artist, the question
is not what the Java programming language will let you do in terms of
creating stand-alone apps, the question is what will it let you do on
the net? Particularly on the mac, java BROWSER
support/implementation is much slower, glitchier, and kludgier than
Flash plug-in support/implementation.
[I'm sidestepping the open-source vs. commercially-owned debate
because it's political, diverting, and uninteresting to me.]
From the beginning, Flash was created as a vector animation tool, and
animation deals with visual aesthetics. That, methinks, is the REAL
reason why Flash is treated as a red headed step-child by both the
software-centric and concept-centric camps of our enlightened
"rhizome-ish" net art community -- because Flash allocates much of
its computational muscle to making things move cool and look good,
and such priorities are not valued by many here.
Personally, a lot of my net art is "browser window" art (cf:
http://www.playdamage.org ). I like working in dhtml because it
falls apart in interesting ways. So my work looks and behaves
differently on different browsers, different operating systems, at
different screen sizes, at different processor speeds. And I like
allowing those variables to mess-up my art. That's part of the
"net-centricity" of it.
In contrast, Java falls apart in less interesting ways. Java is more
like all-or-nothing digital distortion, whereas dhtml is more like
warm-and-gradual analog tube distortion. Java usually either works
slowly or doesn't work at all.
I offer the above instance as just one example in which the "better,
more robust" authoring environment is actually "worse" for a
particular artistic approach.
It's facile to say, "I don't like Flash art," or "I do like Flash
art." Just like it's facile to say, "I don't like internet art," or
"I do like internet art." Flash has its constraints, as the internet
has its constraints, as watercolors have their constraints; but these
constraints still allow a fairly wide berth for stylistic approaches
and content choices.
Likewise, it's parochial to say "all Flash art looks the same." It's
like your grandfather saying, "all that rock & roll noise sounds the
same!" There are subtle differences within the genre of rock & roll
that your grandfather either can't discern or doesn't value. I
should also point out that there is an entire culture of
Flash-prodigy experimental web designers that visit Rhizome and say,
"all that net art crap looks the same." But our ideas of
"legitimate" net art are more "right" than their ideas because...?
Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80 years ago, our predecessors
agreed that his doing so mattered, and we assented?
People who categorically say they don't like Flash-based net art
often mean they don't like net art that prioritizes a visual
aesthetic.
peace,
curt
_
_
always amazed at the sort of patronizing,
look-what-the-cat-dragged-in reaction that net artists have toward
Flash. The tenor of the dialogue usually runs like, "Could this be
art? Do you think so? Really? No! Could it be?"
Miltos Manetas forms the Electronic Orphanage around something as
inconsequential as "works done in flash," and it's greeted as a novel
movement. Even Lev Manovich gets all happy writing a piece about
Flash paradigmatics.
The implicit assumption that a Java applet is a more legitimate net
art medium than an .swf file struck me as bizarre the first time I
heard it, and it still seeems very parochial to me. One may just as
fruitfully have begun this thread by asking, "what is the best work
on the Web done in Java?" Pieces by golan levin, casey reas, martin
wattenberg, and bradford paley come immediately to mind; and then I'd
be hard-pressed to come up with more. For a NET artist, the question
is not what the Java programming language will let you do in terms of
creating stand-alone apps, the question is what will it let you do on
the net? Particularly on the mac, java BROWSER
support/implementation is much slower, glitchier, and kludgier than
Flash plug-in support/implementation.
[I'm sidestepping the open-source vs. commercially-owned debate
because it's political, diverting, and uninteresting to me.]
From the beginning, Flash was created as a vector animation tool, and
animation deals with visual aesthetics. That, methinks, is the REAL
reason why Flash is treated as a red headed step-child by both the
software-centric and concept-centric camps of our enlightened
"rhizome-ish" net art community -- because Flash allocates much of
its computational muscle to making things move cool and look good,
and such priorities are not valued by many here.
Personally, a lot of my net art is "browser window" art (cf:
http://www.playdamage.org ). I like working in dhtml because it
falls apart in interesting ways. So my work looks and behaves
differently on different browsers, different operating systems, at
different screen sizes, at different processor speeds. And I like
allowing those variables to mess-up my art. That's part of the
"net-centricity" of it.
In contrast, Java falls apart in less interesting ways. Java is more
like all-or-nothing digital distortion, whereas dhtml is more like
warm-and-gradual analog tube distortion. Java usually either works
slowly or doesn't work at all.
I offer the above instance as just one example in which the "better,
more robust" authoring environment is actually "worse" for a
particular artistic approach.
It's facile to say, "I don't like Flash art," or "I do like Flash
art." Just like it's facile to say, "I don't like internet art," or
"I do like internet art." Flash has its constraints, as the internet
has its constraints, as watercolors have their constraints; but these
constraints still allow a fairly wide berth for stylistic approaches
and content choices.
Likewise, it's parochial to say "all Flash art looks the same." It's
like your grandfather saying, "all that rock & roll noise sounds the
same!" There are subtle differences within the genre of rock & roll
that your grandfather either can't discern or doesn't value. I
should also point out that there is an entire culture of
Flash-prodigy experimental web designers that visit Rhizome and say,
"all that net art crap looks the same." But our ideas of
"legitimate" net art are more "right" than their ideas because...?
Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80 years ago, our predecessors
agreed that his doing so mattered, and we assented?
People who categorically say they don't like Flash-based net art
often mean they don't like net art that prioritizes a visual
aesthetic.
peace,
curt
_
_
Re: Re: Re: Defining Digital Art
curt:
> > When a
> > definition encourages a piece of music to be considered digital art
> > when it's stored on a CD, but not considered digital art when it's
> > stored on a cassette, then that definition is focusing on
> > distinctions that are not useful at best, and diverting at worst.
chris:
> Do you really think that the Amoda definition encourages us to
> reach such a rigorously retarded conclusion?
curt:
"Art whose final form is digital in nature is digital art." It's
their very first argument. Bethoven's 5th is art. Bethoven'ts 5th
on a CD is "art whose final form is digital in nature." But
understanding Bethoven's 5th on a CD as "digital art" doesn't get me
anywhere. Amoda might argue, "you know that's not what we meant."
But if you're going to bite off the slippery job of defining an art
genre, you've got to come up with something better than, "you know
that's not what we meant."
curt:
> > They're coming at it from a "digital culture" angle.
chris:
> I agree. It is "digital art" if it speaks to or about "digital
> culture".
> Now, how do we define "digital culture"? Well, I think I kinda know
> what
> that is. It has something to do with an interest in (or even an
> embrace
> of) a digital future, an understanding that digital technology is
> changing mainstream culture. A digital artwork is one that is created
> by
> and/or for people who think a lot about how digital technology affects
> the mechanics of culture.
curt:
"digital" simply describes something that's been broken down into
discrete chunks. It's not really intrinsically related to robots, or
the future, or networks, or identity, or modernity, or even
computers. There are analog computers and analog networks.
"Digital" seems an unfortunate term to saddle with all those heady
connotations, particularly since "digital" already literally means
something very specific. Digitalization is definitely an aspect of
several different forms of media, but it hardly seems the defining
aspect of any.
_
_
> > When a
> > definition encourages a piece of music to be considered digital art
> > when it's stored on a CD, but not considered digital art when it's
> > stored on a cassette, then that definition is focusing on
> > distinctions that are not useful at best, and diverting at worst.
chris:
> Do you really think that the Amoda definition encourages us to
> reach such a rigorously retarded conclusion?
curt:
"Art whose final form is digital in nature is digital art." It's
their very first argument. Bethoven's 5th is art. Bethoven'ts 5th
on a CD is "art whose final form is digital in nature." But
understanding Bethoven's 5th on a CD as "digital art" doesn't get me
anywhere. Amoda might argue, "you know that's not what we meant."
But if you're going to bite off the slippery job of defining an art
genre, you've got to come up with something better than, "you know
that's not what we meant."
curt:
> > They're coming at it from a "digital culture" angle.
chris:
> I agree. It is "digital art" if it speaks to or about "digital
> culture".
> Now, how do we define "digital culture"? Well, I think I kinda know
> what
> that is. It has something to do with an interest in (or even an
> embrace
> of) a digital future, an understanding that digital technology is
> changing mainstream culture. A digital artwork is one that is created
> by
> and/or for people who think a lot about how digital technology affects
> the mechanics of culture.
curt:
"digital" simply describes something that's been broken down into
discrete chunks. It's not really intrinsically related to robots, or
the future, or networks, or identity, or modernity, or even
computers. There are analog computers and analog networks.
"Digital" seems an unfortunate term to saddle with all those heady
connotations, particularly since "digital" already literally means
something very specific. Digitalization is definitely an aspect of
several different forms of media, but it hardly seems the defining
aspect of any.
_
_