michael.benson on Thu, 9 Apr 1998 04:46:12 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> interactivity, cave variant |
Hmm yes, interactivity. At the top of my "pegasus mail" window is a small winged horse; when I click on it I have the option to Restore, Minimize or Close. In 30,000 year old cave paintings discovered as recently as 1994 in France (the cave was named Chauvet, after its discoverer), four horse-heads can be seen. There's something very kinetic and even contemporary about the rendering of the animals in this cave. They are gestural and look like pastel works on brown paper. There is a real success in depicting form, volume, motion, incident (two bulls ramming heads together, for example). Why were the horses, and the lions, and the buffalo, in this cave rendered? Was there a need behind the rendering, something that could be approximated by the menu list Restore, Minimize or Close? It's hard to say, but with a little enlargement, I dare say the vanished artist(s) would have little trouble recognizing the horse icon in the upper left corner of the screen. Even if everything surrounding that image was a complete blinking mystery. Was there an implicit command logic behind the cave paintings? A desire to make the animals follow orders, so to speak, or go down pathways chosen by the artist? Or was it a need to receive something back from the animals depicted? Now, interactivity. Branching pathways, multiple choices, the gathering of knowledge in ideosyncratic, self-steered ways. Having opened up a new terrain, i.e. the net, there's even now still a sense of an open horizon, though not really of danger. The last just _may_ be the only thing unique to the cave painters, though, it seems to me. Otherwise, the tools of their rendering are different, yes. The light shining on their work is more -- elemental -- yes. But the representation of a type of understanding, in the form of -- well, a form, a _type_ of language, if not a _typed_ language -- and even the freedom to make that form in an idiosyncratic way appear to be the same then as now, or maybe even weighted in favor of thecave dwellers. The stone wall is a screen. The image is handmade, but no less an "icon". The possibility of changing the rendering seems to have been immediate and direct. Communication didn't speak through this stone wall from the other side of the planet -- or even the valley -- true enough. At least not directly. But it filtered through remembered visual stimuli and maybe comparison with the work of the master in the next cave. An individual who, seeing what was on-screen in this one, may have had the option of adding figures, or retreating back to the next cave to make more figures. Or even deciding to give up on figures altogether and put some food on the table. But the key is the abstraction of the image; it's not a shadow of a physical body, or a fossil of a physical body: it's a _representation_ of a physical body. In effect, bits, not atoms. And what's more, it was projected down through those 300 centuries. How? Through the skill of the artist. Undeniably. So the leap was made at the beginning, and the operating system was the mind. But I keep on coming back to the menu options. Was there a desire to Restore (resurrect?) Minimize (scare off?) or Close (kill?)? Or was there another motive altogether? How interactive, in other words? Hmm. Michael Benson michael.benson@pristop.si website: http://lois.kud-fp.si/kinetikon/ -----End of forwarded message----- --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl