Nmherman on Thu, 2 May 2002 02:24:01 +0200 (CEST)
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Cognitive Diagnostics after 9/11: GENERATION FLASH: Usability/Interaction
In a message dated 4/30/2002 12:31:35 PM Central Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
I agree that the "which end user" issue cannot be solved unless you are
doing extensive demographic research on your artwork (yuk).
Now we are getting to the kernel of it!
Solutions in this matter are illusory. They cannot be solved even if you do do extensive market research. Artists in hyper-capital are stock analysts--"which image do we buy into?"--they sift through the detritus, stalking their prey, and leave nothing but divorce payments and ravings behind.
We also know the observer effect is true--when light (the way we see) hits a particle of matter, it alters the location or speed (2000 or genius) of the object. You can't ever observe both at the same time in the physical universe, so why do we assume we are able to in the artistocognitive universe? How can we even presume to use a circle or sphere as a literary symbol? I find it presumptuous, theatrical and aggressive as an "art concept style". Rotation? Spin? Turntablism? The double helix of genetics? A clock face? It seems to me EARTH has to be more precise conceptually--which is how I have seen EARTH, conceptually not physically--to justify the time using that image if in fact you yourself ascribe metaphorical value to the work.
How about, "The Dawn of the Omnicritic" as far as list moderation goes? I do not understand coding, so I shouldn't even have the right to an opinion about Klima's art and indeed any art in which the coding is esoteric to me? I'd say it's OK. Let's agree on that and avoid a new spate of listmoderation in our daily lives.
As for Thingist, state the rules--don't insinuate them--as per filtering and whoever knowingly breaks etiquette is kicked off. I'm morally OK with that. Seriously though, what is up with this business model of not having the full online version at the url? Real time streaming is the question at hand correct? So actual and meta artworks or artnets should be rhetorically permitted, but which one you prefer shows alot about who prefers you, if I may be so bold.
It's a complicated idea, but when you have to buy a ticket to see the real version, and only get a half-assed version online, it's not net.art. It's not on.line. I think that Six Rules for a New Net Art and the ESMOML, by adhering to documentary, has avoided cliche--perhaps the worst thing we should ever say about an artist?. The manner in which online art reacts to existing market cognito-economies is in fact an observation of a historic event in my opinion. I always used to quote Benjamin, who said, "some ways of thinking are a false overcoming of culture."
Why go to a museum at all if you have Flash? It's a valid debate I think.
To John Klima, I'm sure EARTH is cool to see, the kind of thing people go to New York to see. I am not a programmer so I cannot judge the programming side of it. It comes across to me, Max Herman, as a literary work that is not cutting-edge literary. To the trendy sphere image, I still think that the Monolith image is far superior. And you are an art-coder, not a writer. So maybe I shouldn't judge EARTH on literary terms? Saying the idea came from a book by William Gibson doesn't convince me you use the metaphor well or cliche.
You have said you don't care about the end-user, the blue haired lady. I hear ya on that one. Do you think of the metaphor, is what I'm interested. Programming is metaphorical, coding is like writing, I agree to that in general. But where your best work hits a human face, isn't it still in a museum setting? Would you ever consider creating something online, a new net art piece that follows the Six Rules?
I respect the design of space, but I dread the consequences,
Notes: Art = Priest
Stock analysts are shaman, hustlers, enforcers, whatever you wish to call them. They are paid to predict the future; they gamble and win or lose. To be honest, trying to get someone to pay you to make art is what me mean when we say "I'm trying to be an artist." If you dispute this, you are a Calvinist--you're saying salvation is for the elect only--and have committed a conceptual error of determinism re the laws of physics.
Usability versus interaction is also a Genius 2000 analogue. Conflict and dissonance are the basis of all human mapping and modeling, by definition. Every particle in the universe obeys this rule and so do we. Whether we are men or gods, we all die.
Genius 2000 applies to this debate vis-a-vis other metaphors like "good versus evil" and is a very exceptional debugger of undesirable conflicts. Cognitive conflicts that is.
Now perhaps you will not pay me for debugging services. Thoughtflow observation axes (cit. Klima/Glasbead/ EARTH) are never free. However, I am sworn by law to protest if I see leadership errors.
Concerning the Macromedia program Flash, perhaps we can still our petty attacks and say "Yes we of the Genius 2000 Generation are indeed Generation Flash.
Re the symbolism of the black dot on Genius 2000 tickets: in my opinion, the mathematics of spheres is certainly an iconic, universal form in all human art history. If I were to be grading EARTH as a paper--we are publishing here yes--I would say this is too technic a project to warrant an Aa2 rating, end of story.
I admire that John gets funding, that he is dedicated and consistent in his work. He is one of the valiant police officers and firefighters trying to draw humanity back from the abyss of hell, and for that I admire him--but only on principle, as I respect the Pope for requiring Law back to Rome. I respect those who affect events, insofar as I respect the context of their achievement; but achievement is a double-edged sword.
It would appear legal, now that I own www.genius2000.net outright, to incorporate the Genius 2000 Network and give it equal footing with all major networks. I legally own www.genius2000.net now, and will be able to deliver content over infinite pipeline architecture for another year, 2002.
As far as moral punishment, let me say in all great love that I prefer it to World War Three. Information punishment is war; moral punishment is law; intellectual punishment is work; expressive punishment is art; biological punishment is death. Physical punishment is violence. Emotional punishment also pertains to isotropocism in neurohormonal mapping of stress and violent tendencies in the human brain, and the math thereof in my opinion.
Daily Post for Thingist,