Zak McGregor on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:12:04 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH (2 / 3)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:19:34 -0400
"Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <> wrote:

> The seemingly endless backlash against Flash can, in many ways, be
> traced to a simple dislike for the "Flash aesthetic" or the
> predominance of that aesthetic. I, for one, hope that now that a
> leading art thinker has analysed and defined the "Flash aesthetic" in
> great detail, maybe now we can put that aesthetic aside and explore
> the millions of other things Flash can be and do and look like. Even
> Josh Davis has, in many respects, put that aesthetic out to pasture,
> as seen in his rather baroque new"synthetic sinewy" works.

Rubbish. The backlash against Flash is more to do with its inherent
un-openness and baulky, unwieldy, proprietary specification. Along with
a host of really unbelievable shortcomings like bookmarking/linking
issues, searching issues etc. It is in fact a testiment to the
shallowness of our society, one more concerned with form than function,
what size a singer's breasts or biceps are than what they sound like,
and cars that look good but drive badly that Flash has gained the
following it has. Flash is what we would have if Darwinism was about
looks rather than about ability. 

Flash also is dangerous for these same reasons, coupled to its alarming
rise in popularity. Due to its severe limitiations, it is very difficult
to interoperate with, either by automated scripts and autonomous agaents
or by people with disabilites or people who don't use GUI interfaces.
Flash has the ability to set the web back 4 years or more, to a time
when proprietary systems and non-interoperability where the order of the

See also:



Zak McGregor - Over 8500 car specs online

Nettime-bold mailing list