| nettime's_flashometer_II on Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:10:50 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> ++ Re: GENERATION FLASH [McElroy 5x, quigley, Klima, Nmherman, Andrews] |
Table of Contents:
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
quigley <[email protected]>
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
John Klima <[email protected]>
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
[email protected]
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH /modernism
Ian Andrews <[email protected]>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:39:55 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
Quoting John Klima <[email protected]>:
>
> when discussing artwork, soft or not, the focus is naturally on the
> appearance of the thing. its the first thing you encounter when you
> "see" it.
I have very often been affected by artwork where the appearance has little more
to do than represent a signature of the experience. Since text, sound,
algorythms, concepts are a great deal of the practice of software arts,
appearance is only one of many attributes, no more important than the others.
That said, I try to make anything I do give a good visual first impression.
This is by choice, not a requirement.
>we are still primarily dealing with a visual medium here
Not at all, we are dealing with a medium that can communicate in numerous ways,
restricted only by the physical output devices we create. The same program
that sends bits to pixels could just as easily send bits to midi devices, such
as lights or instruments. A interpreter could be built to make the bit stream
meaningful, regardless of the output device.
> the problematic aspects of interactivity are
> precisely why i make work that does not *have* to be interacted with,
> and by so doing, i relinquish all responsibility to make it "easy to
> use."
Did van gogh send canvases to his brother to be seen, or did he require people
to come to the fields where he created his paintings? You have a
responsibility, if you wish to communicate, to maximize the ability of your
medium to do so - even if your communication is of an esoteric sort with a
limited audience.
> the public expects "ease of use" as the most critical element in
> software interaction, how often has this appeared in promo materials and
> advertising? allways. can't think of a single piece of software
> advertising that does not include those three words. but where in the
> museum catalogues and art reviews do those words appear? never. "this
> jackson pollock is easy to use and integrates seamlessly with your
> couch."
However, all you have to tell the public is that it is a painting and they
already know that it hangs on a wall. Software has not become standardized and
thus advertising tries to let the public know what are the features. Just
because ease of use is desired by a general audience should not reduce its
applicability to fine art... most artists still make paintings that hang on
walls.
> if the discussion focuses on interaction, the question of usability
> always seems to be the priority. why should the user be considered at
> all? this isn't a spereadsheet, there is no productivity that needs to
> be considered. concerns of human interaction seem to me to be more
> scientific concerns than art concerns. by what criteria do we assess an
> aesthetic of interactivity?
Why are sculptures not placed in caves? I don't think it has been the historic
trend in art to make physical inaccessability part of the learning curve.
Unless you are making conceptual art, in which case you could just tell us what
the program is supposed to do, make it impossible to open the executible, and
then never bother programming it in the first place. At some point, if not
entirely conceptual, you have to provide some method of accessability...you
have to think of how a human interacts with your art...the question you are
really proposing is not if we should be concerned with interactivity - but to
what level of intelligence and ability should we set our sights. Where do you
draw the line between "blue haired old ladies" and "fresh-faced techno-nerds?"
I would judge interactivity aesthetically to some degree similar to texture on
a sculpture...it is the result of the process of building the piece and is
harmonious with its intentions.
> one ever discuss interaction when not all people agree what is left and
> what is right? this is certainly an exageration of the problem, but it
> highlights the situation that not all users are equally capable of
> interaction.
And isn't nice that art, as always, is on the forefront of integrating society
into new ways of thinking and finding standards upon which it rests. This is
not a problem that prevents art, this is a problem to be solved by art. Better
us solve it than businesses only concerned if it sells profitably.
- --
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
Electrify your sales, Electrify your Mind
- -------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:45:07 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
> [and ways that, by absolute necessity and contrary to what goes on most
> of the time even now, incorporate thought about the "end-user" right at
> the beginning of the creative process]
Yes, from the very start of a project, you start thinking about the end-
user...because you allow yourself to access and interact with it...otherwise
you could not complete it. It would be even better to make access more
elegent from the beginning, build layers of accessability as you build the
piece. Creating textures that people can "feel" their way through.
- --
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
Electrify your sales, Electrify your Mind
Quoting Kanarinka <[email protected]>:
> hi folks,
> I really like the focus on interaction here. I think that this is one of
> the keys to understanding the medium that we are trafficking in. Let's
> keep up the dialogue.
>
... <nettime SNIPs>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:12:49 -0400
From: quigley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
Mark, I agree there's very little by way of an aesthetic language for
interactive works. Could you say a bit more about "the aesthetic of
interactivity" and the extent to which these aspects of a work might be
perceived and appreciated on the user/viewer end?
tq
On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 12:15 AM, napier wrote:
> To discuss software art
> solely in terms of what appears on the screen is like discussing the
> Spiral
> Jetty in terms of the quality of the rubble used to build it. What
> appears
> on the screen is one part of the work, often a fairly small part. The
> meat
> of the artwork is in *how* the screen was created...At this point I
> haven't heard a language for describing this aesthetic of interactivity.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:56:00 -0400
From: John Klima <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" wrote:
>
> Quoting John Klima <[email protected]>:
> >we are still primarily dealing with a visual medium here
> Not at all, we are dealing with a medium that can communicate in numerous ways,
> restricted only by the physical output devices we create. The same program
> that sends bits to pixels could just as easily send bits to midi devices, such
> as lights or instruments. A interpreter could be built to make the bit stream
> meaningful, regardless of the output device.
the first *at* at any interface is the visual once over.
> > the problematic aspects of interactivity are
> > precisely why i make work that does not *have* to be interacted with,
> > and by so doing, i relinquish all responsibility to make it "easy to
> > use."
>
> Did van gogh send canvases to his brother to be seen, or did he require people
> to come to the fields where he created his paintings? You have a
> responsibility, if you wish to communicate, to maximize the ability of your
> medium to do so - even if your communication is of an esoteric sort with a
> limited audience.
van gogh did not care a wit about usability and i only want the same
luxury.
> > the public expects "ease of use" as the most critical element in
> > software interaction, how often has this appeared in promo materials and
> > advertising? allways. can't think of a single piece of software
> > advertising that does not include those three words. but where in the
> > museum catalogues and art reviews do those words appear? never. "this
> > jackson pollock is easy to use and integrates seamlessly with your
> > couch."
>
> However, all you have to tell the public is that it is a painting and they
> already know that it hangs on a wall. Software has not become standardized and
> thus advertising tries to let the public know what are the features. Just
> because ease of use is desired by a general audience should not reduce its
> applicability to fine art... most artists still make paintings that hang on
> walls.
indeed paintings are easy to use
> > if the discussion focuses on interaction, the question of usability
> > always seems to be the priority. why should the user be considered at
> > all? this isn't a spereadsheet, there is no productivity that needs to
> > be considered. concerns of human interaction seem to me to be more
> > scientific concerns than art concerns. by what criteria do we assess an
> > aesthetic of interactivity?
>
> Why are sculptures not placed in caves? I don't think it has been the historic
> trend in art to make physical inaccessability part of the learning curve.
> Unless you are making conceptual art, in which case you could just tell us what
> the program is supposed to do, make it impossible to open the executible, and
> then never bother programming it in the first place. At some point, if not
> entirely conceptual, you have to provide some method of accessability...you
> have to think of how a human interacts with your art...the question you are
> really proposing is not if we should be concerned with interactivity - but to
> what level of intelligence and ability should we set our sights. Where do you
> draw the line between "blue haired old ladies" and "fresh-faced techno-nerds?"
physical inaccessability has certinly not been a part of the learning
curve. physical inaccessabilty has never been much of an issue, except,
maybe, that which is caused by finacial constraints preventing an
individual to go to one particular church or another. lets not forget
what is the original internet.
> I would judge interactivity aesthetically to some degree similar to texture on
> a sculpture...it is the result of the process of building the piece and is
> harmonious with its intentions.
>
> > one ever discuss interaction when not all people agree what is left and
> > what is right? this is certainly an exageration of the problem, but it
> > highlights the situation that not all users are equally capable of
> > interaction.
>
> And isn't nice that art, as always, is on the forefront of integrating society
> into new ways of thinking and finding standards upon which it rests.
love it.
> not a problem that prevents art, this is a problem to be solved by art.
yup
j
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:09:57 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
Quoting John Klima <[email protected]>:
> the first *at* at any interface is the visual once over.
Not true, I very often hear Software Art before I see it. I don't see why an
interface could not consist entirely of the user mimicking the sounds they hear
from a hidden speaker.
> van gogh did not care a wit about usability and i only want the same
> luxury.
>
What is your definition of usability? Are you going corporate on me John?
Limiting the term to ergonomic matters?
> indeed paintings are easy to use
Yes after centuries of painting on walls, artists figured out how to use
lightweight canvas to make paintings more portable and usable.
- --
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Take the Survey everyone is talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
- -------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:44:38 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:21:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> the questions i'm posing actually are very much a
> conversation about interaction
Hey John, you mind if I check if I'm getting unsubbed? That sentence you
wrote is a grotesque burlesque of you as an artist.
I went to see glasbead, so here goes. It's for one a G2K logo-image. The
math, the symbolism, the venue, and context are weakening as well.
Your glasbead goes out, or between, yes? And EARTH goes around, as I hear.
You're manipulating the idea of the globe, mapping it, with a particular
aesthetic; yet your conclusions--if I may ask this of your work--are not
artistically masterful in my fervent opinion.
Now, as in cello art for example, I can't judge in the higher levels of
skill. Maybe there is a need for your vision of earth, your art; yet perhaps
the need is inflated. In my opinion you are not a very good artist. You
code, you animate, why would I care if you do? You have no authority over
me.
For those who do not know, when I argue directly with certain people on
Rhizome, they threaten to bail out to Thingist in protest. So, negotiations
are tense and there is little hope for any compromise.
There is also the question of eroding brand quality. Rhizome is a brand,
Thing is a brand. Check the fine print. If you join, you join for good.
They are like rival publishing houses in my opinion, minor but ambitious and
backed with talent or talents, who can say. There are editors, and they
exert editorial policy. There are also moderators, as in any political
group. So, let's say Rhizome is Republican and Thing is Democratic, and be
fun chaps about it. Or else, continue with political debate.
The internet is changing because of Genius 2000 and ideas like it. Critics
with reputations, careers, and ambition are competing in the
free-market-funded market of culture as we live it today; here in the US and
maybe there too? Read Woodcutters about the Austrian art-grant set in the
60's in Austria. As a professor of mine--Gayle Whittier, a brilliant
Shakespeare scholar at SUNY-Binghamton--once said, "academics are sheep with
fangs." In general I have found this to be true.
Perhaps the philosophical differences between Rhizome and The Thing are
bitter yet bred of conviction, and should be respected. Many fear the demise
of Rhizome; some fear the demise of The Thing. People value their time, and
I accept that. But this situation, confusing as it is, comes down to one
issue: censorship.
"For who is God, but them that speak the truth; and let no man tear asunder
what God hath planted."--Ecclesiastes 4:16-18
Max Herman
www.electrichands.com/genius2000
++
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:49:21 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
> Now, as in cello art for example, I can't judge in the higher levels of
> skill. Maybe there is a need for your vision of earth, your art; yet perhaps
> the need is inflated. In my opinion you are not a very good artist. You
> code, you animate, why would I care if you do? You have no authority over
> me.
An unfair assessment, a dedication to code and animation of the Earth has its
own harmony and authority. John, in my mind, is continuing the long line of
sculptors. There is room and need for sculptors in this medium. Lord knows that
I would never have the patience to carve a life-sized figure out of stone, nor
the patience to carve a virtual world...but I am glad someone else is doing it.
- --
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Take the Survey everyone is talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
Quoting [email protected]:
> In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:21:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
...
<nettime SNIPs>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:40:32 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
>I don't love all of it just because it's sculpture.
Nor do I...however I often respect the first attempts in any new medium,
regardless of how they stack up against the entire history. Inventing the forms
and structures are necessary before the critical and comparative process can
begin. And I did find an experience from Earth that I found meaningful -
viewing the abstract Mt Everest with knowledge of live data feed filled me with
an emotion resembling loss, a desire for something I would never acheive, and
which I did not know I desired. It is simple, but an excellent start.
Much like
- --
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Take the Survey everyone is talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
www.electrichands.com
212-255-4527
Quoting [email protected]:
> In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:50:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
... <nettime SNIPs>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:08:36 +1000
From: Ian Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH /modernism
>Thirty years of media art and post-modernism have inevitably led to a
>reaction. We are tired of always taking existing media as a starting point.
>We are tired of being always secondary, always reacting to what already
>exists.
>
SNIP
>To return to the topic of new modernism. Of course we don't want to simply
>replay Mondrian and Klee on computer screens. The task of the new generation
>is to integrate the two paradigms of the twentieth century: (1) belief in
>science and rationality, emphasis on efficiency, basic forms, idealism and
>heroic spirit of modernism; (2) skepticism, interest in �marginality� and
>�complexity,� deconstructive strategies, baroque opaqueness and excess of
>post-modernism (1960s-). At this point all the features of the second
>paradigm became tired clich�s. Therefore a return to modernism is not a bad
>first step, as long as it is just a first step towards developing the new
>aesthetics for the new age.
I think this is a really interesting point. But I would argue that this
reaction is not just limited to net based art, but is part of a much wider
movement away from post-modern culture. I have seen this happening in
post-digital music, where the return to modernist aesthetics is evident in
a tendency towards purity and singularity, long form minimalistic drones -
music concrete replaces the recombinant media practice of cut-up - album
covers are typified by minmalistic geometric designs, or almost blank (mute
- - no text). In video art I have also recently noticed a drive towards
geometric formalism and synaesthesia and a move away from media art, essay,
and narrative experimentation.
I think that you are right to attribute this shift to a dissatisfation (or
boredom) with the continual surface play of post-modern media manipulation,
and in particular the rather tired use of kitsch and camp that often
accompanies that direction. But perhaps its also symtomatic of a nostalgic
retreat from the problematics of the post-modern condition towards the cosy
certainties of an earlier age. And also a reaction to the problematics
posed by the "end of art" argument: the idea that anything can be art -
anyone can be/ everyone is an artist A reaction which manifests itself in
the form of a new avant gardism.
This desire for a return to purity and singularity is not without its
problems. At the very worst it can come across as anti-intellectual,
interiorizing and politically reactionary. Intertextuality,
self-reflexivity, and other textual strategies associated, rigtly or
wrongly, with post-modern culture, often seem to be replaced by various
forms of essentialism.
Secondly the problem of the post-modern condition cannot be simply solved
by denial. The loss of faith in the grand legitimating narratives of
modernism is not something that can be be easily restored (even if that
were desirable). I would be wary of conflating the post-modern condition
(loss of depth, crisis of the great narratives, reduction of distance
brought about by the information age) with post-modern culture
(post-structuralism, deconstruction, media art, pastiche etc - often all
wrongly called post-modernism) The later is merely a response to the
former. A respone made up of different strategies.
But, as you say, the return to modernism, which might better be called a
return to formalism (in an attempt to aviod romantic idealism), is only the
first step. Perhaps it presents a way of starting again, to build the
narrative of art from a new beginning (for Hegel art begins with the
abstract work of art - simple geometric forms). But I don't know if that is
possible. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
I hope my comments don't come across as being too negative. I have to admit
that my own work has also changed in the last few years, drifting away from
more media art oriented stuff towards this new formalism. I do work with
flash, but I also do alot with sound and video. For me, I think the change
came about independently of the tools I was using. I do not think that the
shift in my own work came from a desire to create something without taking
existing media as a starting point (which is something that I continue to
do very much).
for reference: http://www.anonradio.net/4/
Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney
Email: [email protected]
http://www.metroscreen.com.au
Metro Screen
Sydney Film Centre
Paddington Town Hall
P.O. Box 299
Paddington NSW 2021
Ph : 612 9361 5318
Fax: 612 9361 5320
------------------------------
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]