napier on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:16:31 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH: Lev / Sawad |
This discussion of software (Flash) aesthetic focuses on the appearance of the software-artwork rather than on the function. I doesn't make sense to put John Simon, Lisa Jevbratt and Golan Levin in the same sentence without distinguishing that Golan's work is meant to be *used*, where the other two are not. In Simon and Jevbratt the work is experienced mostly through the eyes (certainly with Simon, less so with Lisa's work). In Golan's work, the only way to "get" the piece is to interact with it. In Simon's work the algorithm drives the piece; it is pre-determined, much like a clock. Lisa's work is determined also, ie. by the structure of IP addresses. 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. 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. You can't present a Golan Levin as an animated loop, or as a randomly generated output. Even though the appearance may be identical, this would be a completely different work that would likely have very little impact on the viewer. There is a direct relationship created between the artwork and the viewer in which the viewer actively participates to create what they see on the screen. Take that dynamic away, and the user falls back into the familiar role of viewer. Software artwork often uses obvious forms (animation, vector math, collage, remix, appropriation) but puts these forms into an interactive structure that has an aesthetic value of its own, based on its function and usage. At this point I haven't heard a language for describing this aesthetic of interactivity. The elements of interactive art include control, authority (to what extent does the user control the piece, to what extent does the artist allows loss of control). Open-ness. Duration and persistence (what is the impact of a user action, how long does it last). How do users relate to each other through the work. What relationships does the work create between users, the author, and the work itself. I don't think it's possible to discuss software interactivity without discussing authority. Software is designed to be responsive to input, and that creates a vulnerability that can be exploited by users. They can overload artwork, reprogram the work (in some cases), or subvert the work by misusing it (if such a thing is possible). Prior to software, art has been protected from misuse by a strict "hands off" policy. But the nature of software + computer interface allows a "hands on" approach (mediated by the mouse), that opens up the work, and opens up a can of worms too. mark At 09:09 PM 4/27/2002 -0700, Lev Manovich wrote: >Sawad, > >I am delighted by the dialog and the number of responses provoked by my >text. I tried to make it confrontational on purpose to stimulate the debate, >and seems that it worked. Here are my answers to your comment. > > snip nettime napier@potatoland.org # 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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net