John Klima on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:07:02 +0200 (CEST)

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

[Nettime-bold] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad

napier wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 4/29/2002 -0400, John Klima wrote:
> >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. it's how it looks that makes the first impression regardless
> >of the function.
> First impressions are surely based on the visual, but lasting impressions
> are based on the overall experience of the piece, the impact it has
> intellectually, the gut feel that it creates.  If we talk only about
> appearance we'll miss the point of most art of the past 50-100 years.

but perhaps in software art, the appearance is not talked about enough.

> >the public expects "ease of use" as the most critical element in
> >software interaction, ....
> >.... but where in the
> >museum catalogues and art reviews do those words appear? never.
> ...The screen often responds surprisingly to the mouse motion, which is
> more interesting than a simple 1 to 1 mapping of mouse motion to graphic
> motion.

is it? or does it simply confound the user. why does jerry saltz hate it
when there is an input device? he's part of the conversation too.
> And some people are blind and can't look at visual art.  That doesn't stop
> the discussion of visual aesthetics.

it does for that person. that visual art is visual, it is a given that
it requires the use of eyes. that chuck close can't grab the mouse at
the whitney bugs the hell out of me. that jerry saltz wont grab the
mouse also bugs the hell out of me.
> >  the primary element of software art
> >still firmly resides in what is displayed on the screen, and second how
> >it got there, and third, how a viewer interacts with it. however, i do
> >firmly believe that the best work includes all three.
> Right.  And given that we're talking about software art here, and we're not
> too handicapped to experience the art on all three levels, I think it's
> worth talking about all three.

that lev posts an essay whose focus is on the aesthetic does not
preclude the discussion of function, and as i mentioned above, it seems
that a little more discussion about the appearance might be a good
thing. and the questions i'm posing actually are very much a
conversation about interaction.


Nettime-bold mailing list