In 2025, I wrote a little ‘rant’ on the gap between established (Belgian) art institutions and artists working with (digital) technologies. Read it here.
In short: I argue that the role of (digital) technologies in artistic practices is still not well understood and underrepresented in the wider art world, causing a growing gap in artistic digital literacy in education, policy-making, and art organisations. My observation has since been confirmed by the Landschapstekening by Flanders Arts Institute (Kunstenpunt), a report on the municipality’s ‘state of the arts’, presented last Fall.
In response, I became part of an informal initiative, fl_x, comprising four artists working with technology in very different ways, but sharing the concerns of the report: Alex Verhaest, Stijn Demeulenaere, Roel Heremans, and myself have organised ourselves with support of Kunstenpunt. We are informal ‘scouts’, meeting with actors in the Belgian art world to find out what is needed to bridge this gap. In November, Kunstenpunt organises a gathering on the subject.
Given the overwhelming response to our first requests for meetings with curators and directors (Kanal, Middelheimmuseum, Z33, FoMu Antwerp, Center for Artist Documentation, ExtraCity, Out of Sight, Wiels, argos, etc.), it is clear that there is a need for a better integration of, by lack of a better word, ‘media arts’, within the so-called ‘traditional’ art world. We have quite a schedule ahead of us in the coming months.
There are challenges, too. A recurrent issue appears to be the question: what do we mean by ‘media art’, or ‘technology’? Most artists working with (digital) technology do not identify as ‘digital’ or ‘technological’ artists at all. Additionally, there is a large variety of such artists practices, in step with the increasing availability of different digital forms and media. Apart from that, a growing number of artists makes use of (digital) technologies, one way or another. It turns out that these artists can rarely be assigned to a neatly defined category.
Speaking for myself alone, categorisation is fluid. I am a visual artist, who happens to work with digital media. But for me ‘working with’ as opposed to ‘using’ technology means there is a difference between considering a digital environment as a tool to think with – as opposed to just a tool for production: famously, the medium is (part of) the message. To complicate things: as an artist, I consider myself a film-maker at heart, too, even though I never use a camera, actors or even a script or storyboard.
Many artists describe their practices in terms of hybrid, multimedia, intermedia, or expanded. Perhaps institutionally or policy-wise categorising art within bounded definitions might provide clarity for some, but may leave many practices in limbo. It might even be unhelpful in bridging between ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ media. As the ‘traditional’ artist as we know it is making way for new, research or project driven practices, perhaps the ‘traditional’ categories are also subject to re-evaluation.
On a side-note: I am thinking about philosopher Gilles Deleuze’s rhizomes. In my 1990s art education, Deleuze was popular – although unreadable to me. In secondary literature, I don’t remember where, I found an explanation of Deleuze’s concept of webs and networks that remained with me – even though I may have misinterpreted it. In short: in times where the web of societal, political, bureaucratic or corporate rules has an increasingly tight hold of people, the web’s mazes become so close, they are increasingly easy to escape. It goes for people who for one reason or another do not fit the system (and end up homeless, or burnt out), but also makes possible a growing group of nonconformists.