| nettime's_flashometer_III on Wed, 1 May 2002 07:09:17 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Re: GENERATION FLASH [sawad, Klima 3x, McElroy 2x] |
Table of Contents:
Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
Sawad <[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: Usability/Interaction
John Klima <[email protected]>
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrich
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
John Klima <[email protected]>
------------------------------
<Sawad's message delayed / nettime>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:46:57 -0400
From: Sawad <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
At 12:15 AM 4/29/02 -0400, napier wrote:
>Golan's work is open. The algorithm may behave in a
>pre-determined way, but how the user "uses" the work is not pre-determined.
>
>Software art (Flash, java, etc) can be *used*. This is a unique aspect of
>this medium that breaks with previous forms.
Mark,
I don't think that the issue is necessarily one of "pre-determination" as a
distinguishing term between "software art" and "previous forms."
The history of art provides too many examples where artworks are "used," in
one way or another, even perversely, to create other meanings for artworks
and/or their larger contexts.
This is also to acknowledge that representations are always constituted
through some "programming," or cultural codes through which they are
presented to audiences, and through which audiences address artworks. But
the unfinished or "open" aspect of software artworks seems to me needs to
be further refined, if it is to be considered a uniqueness that
differentiates these works from "previous forms."
Sawad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:54:03 -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]>:
>
> > 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.
good point, when the piece has sound and someone is standing in front of
the monitor, you do hear it first. but thats no clue to whether it even
has an interface. once you step up and see it, only then do you know if
it has an interface at all.
>
> > 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?
of course not. usability in the case of EARTH came down to how fast the
user could get around. EARTH has a very poor interface if you are at all
goal oriented. why cant you just type in a name and have it zoom to that
location? thats usability. after watching people interact with EARTH i
made modifications to make it "easier" to use. i felt i had to, though i
really didn't want to.
best,
j
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:02:19 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
If I were to critique Earth, I would start with the stated fact that you had to
modify the interface after the fact. Regardless of whether you wanted a "hard"
interface or "easy" one, the interface should develop as part of the work,
thought about from the get go, a natural "texture" of the piece.
- --
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 John Klima <[email protected]>:
>
>
> "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> good point, when the piece has sound and someone is standing in front of
> the monitor, you do hear it first. but thats no clue to whether it even
> has an interface. once you step up and see it, only then do you know if
> it has an interface at all.
>
> >
> > > 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?
>
> of course not. usability in the case of EARTH came down to how fast the
> user could get around. EARTH has a very poor interface if you are at all
> goal oriented. why cant you just type in a name and have it zoom to that
> location? thats usability. after watching people interact with EARTH i
> made modifications to make it "easier" to use. i felt i had to, though i
> really didn't want to.
>
> best,
> j
>
- -------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:34:02 -0400
From: John Klima <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
thinking about the end user has never been a *requirement* of art. and
once you start thinking about the end user you get into all those
difficult areas like "which end user." You start thinking about
usability and not necessarily, form. usability goes farther than "easy"
and "hard." some game interfaces are hard by design. but there is a
purpose there, to create a game.
what then is the purpose of interface within a work of art?
j
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" wrote:
>
> > [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.
>
<SNIP nettime>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:10:23 -0400
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
Thinking about the end user has always been an essential part of art...even if
you are making it for yourself, you have yourself as an audience. However,
presentation and interfacing with art is very context sensitive - sometimes it
is shown in the studio, sometimes in a gallary, sometimes in a home, sometimes
in a Museum. There are two levels of interface we need to think about... an
internal, intimite experience with others we imagine to be similar to
ourselves - this is the interface that grows as a natural development of the
art - and the external, public experience we have limited control over and for
which it is too complex to design interfaces approachable by everybody.
The first is part of the art, the second is part of the presentation. The
artist has total responsibility for the first, shares responsibility with
others for the second.
- --
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 John Klima <[email protected]>:
>
> thinking about the end user has never been a *requirement* of art. and
> once you start thinking about the end user you get into all those
> difficult areas like "which end user." You start thinking about
> usability and not necessarily, form. usability goes farther than "easy"
> and "hard." some game interfaces are hard by design. but there is a
> purpose there, to create a game.
>
> what then is the purpose of interface within a work of art?
> j
>
<SNIP nettime>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:40:46 -0400
From: John Klima <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad
i wanted the interface to be spin faster and have alot more inertia, but
i had to slow it down and reduce the inertia to accomodate the
impatience and goal oriented nature of the audience. it wasn't a
question of hard or easy. the interface is the same just slower and
"lighter" and the interface most certainly developed as part of the
piece. it is the piece.
j
"Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" wrote:
>
> If I were to critique Earth, I would start with the stated fact that you had to
> modify the interface after the fact. Regardless of whether you wanted a "hard"
> interface or "easy" one, the interface should develop as part of the work,
> thought about from the get go, a natural "texture" of the piece.
>
> --
> 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 John Klima <[email protected]>:
>
> >
> >
<SNIP>
------------------------------
# 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]