ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Christopher Fahey has been making computer games and graphics since childhood, and he continues to experiment with new ideas in computer art and design. He is the creative force behind the online laboratories http://www.graphpaper.com and http://www.askrom.com. Christopher is a founding partner of Behavior, a New York-based interaction design firm, where he serves as the Information Architecture practice lead. He has led many interactive productions as an art director, game designer, interface designer, and information architect. Christopher graduated from the Cooper Union School of Art in 1993 with a focus on interactive sculptures and installations, and has worked in the new media business ever since.
Re: Re: [thingist] Context Breeder Mid-Project Report
While I advocate usability professionally, and while I think that poor
usability often unwittingly ruins a lot of ambitious net.art work
(http://010101.sfmoma.org/), I also think that John's project has a
formal goal beyond the conceptual algorithm which recombines the Artbase
"DNA": He is also experimenting with user interface paradigms, and as
such we should not expect the interface to stick to normal interface
standards.
A really great book on web site usability is titled "Don't make me
think", and in my day job as an information architect and interaction
designer I think this is a great rule of thumb. But in an art context, I
think the opposite can be quite true: "Make me think!" is the name of
the game. Josh Davis once said that we shouldn't make interfaces that
assume the user is stupid. I agree.
That said, I think most net.artists, including John, need to keep in
mind the usability of their work. Just because it's art doesn't
necessarily mean that the artists has carte blanche with the GUI. If
subverting the interface is the point, then go ahead and rock it Jodi
style and make every button and widget a total mystery. If building
compelling, elegant, and innovative interactive experiences is your goal
(this well describes John Klima's whole artistic practice, IMHO), then
usability should be a factor in your equation.
I reserve judgement on the usability of John's interface, but it seems
to me at this in-progress stage that it is not so challenging that his
audience wont figure it out after a little bit of thinking. Also, it
shows promise as something that might actually be an interesting
interactive experience when it's done.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
usability often unwittingly ruins a lot of ambitious net.art work
(http://010101.sfmoma.org/), I also think that John's project has a
formal goal beyond the conceptual algorithm which recombines the Artbase
"DNA": He is also experimenting with user interface paradigms, and as
such we should not expect the interface to stick to normal interface
standards.
A really great book on web site usability is titled "Don't make me
think", and in my day job as an information architect and interaction
designer I think this is a great rule of thumb. But in an art context, I
think the opposite can be quite true: "Make me think!" is the name of
the game. Josh Davis once said that we shouldn't make interfaces that
assume the user is stupid. I agree.
That said, I think most net.artists, including John, need to keep in
mind the usability of their work. Just because it's art doesn't
necessarily mean that the artists has carte blanche with the GUI. If
subverting the interface is the point, then go ahead and rock it Jodi
style and make every button and widget a total mystery. If building
compelling, elegant, and innovative interactive experiences is your goal
(this well describes John Klima's whole artistic practice, IMHO), then
usability should be a factor in your equation.
I reserve judgement on the usability of John's interface, but it seems
to me at this in-progress stage that it is not so challenging that his
audience wont figure it out after a little bit of thinking. Also, it
shows promise as something that might actually be an interesting
interactive experience when it's done.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
Re: Re: You are the Agent of Alternative Reality
Here's a great example of advertising subversion: A graphic designer
working for a swiss bank designed a suite of four posters, each of which
prominently featured a photograph of a human figure contorting their
arms in a different way. When arranged on a wall, the arms turned into
letters and the letters spelled "NAZI". I believe that these posters
actually made it out to the public. That's subversiveness.
The ACR stuff is cool (and thought provoking as evidenced by this
thread) but like 99% of subversive art projects, it's more of a
commentary for the choir than a goal-oriented political action. (dplanet
sux!)
Another example of prankish quasi-subversion: Bill Ripken, brother of
Cal Ripken the now-retired Baltimore Oriole baseball star, appeared in
his official Topps Baseball Card photograph in 1989 with a bat on which
he had written (or, as he alleges, a mischeivous teammate had written)
"Fuck Face". He even held the bat strategically so that the phrase was
easily visible:
http://www.snopes2.com/business/hidden/ripken.htm
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> On Behalf Of t.whid
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:56 PM
> To: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: You are the Agent of Alternative Reality
>
>
> note: i was referring to the mobile communication collection,
> apologies for not being clear.
>
> i looked this site over pretty closely a couple of weeks ago, looking
> specifically for images in the backgrounds that could be subversive.
> didn't see anything that would be noticeable enough to have an effect
> on an average viewer of these images and was left wondering what it's
> effect may be outside of those (like us) who are in on the joke.
>
> if an image makes it to a big campaign (highly unlikely) and enough
> people know it's 'subversive' then i suppose we can all laugh at the
> company. but i don't see this subverting anything other than the
> stock houses that may lose a minuscule amount of business (it could
> be argued that the images they sell are more satirical than the ones
> used at ACR) by people using these free ones.
>
> it's a catch-22, if the images were overtly subversive they wouldn't
> get past the clients. if you make the subversion too subtle they
> simply become free stock. i would argue that the photographer didn't
> hit the sweet spot in the middle.
>
> take care
>
> At 13:35 -0400 6/18/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
> >i agree that the poses aren't subversive. but there is a
> subtle laugh track
> >playing in the background... that is the element of
> resistance i think.
> >
> >
> >> from net art news:
> >>
> >> You are the Agent of Alternative Reality
> >>
> >> "Alternative Corporate Reality" (ACR) is a nose-thumbing tactical
> >> media project that tricks corporations into using anti-corporate
> >> icons in their own ad campaigns. Freelance graphic designers are
> >> challenged to download ACR stock photography and use it in ad
> >> campaigns for their corporate clients. This ACR stock photography
> >> features recognizable project organizer Damian Stephens in various
> >> mock-serious power poses. Participating designers then
> upload samples
> >> of their "subverted" corporate work to the ACR site as evidence of
> >> their bravado. More of a sly wink than a thrown brick, but every
> >> little bit counts when you're fighting the man.
> >>
> http://media.k10k.net/issues/issuewarp.php?ID7&URL=issues/i
ssue117/index.php
>>
twhid wrote:
>> this seems like a very interesting project, but the images aren't
>> anti-corporate or subversive in anyway that i can tell.
>>
>> simply labeling an image 'subversive' don't make it so.
>>
>> i don't see how this project works to 'subvert' anything at all,
>> except in the minds of few designers who are in the know.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
+ dirty.bomb$THpleted.uranium
-> Rhizome.org
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
working for a swiss bank designed a suite of four posters, each of which
prominently featured a photograph of a human figure contorting their
arms in a different way. When arranged on a wall, the arms turned into
letters and the letters spelled "NAZI". I believe that these posters
actually made it out to the public. That's subversiveness.
The ACR stuff is cool (and thought provoking as evidenced by this
thread) but like 99% of subversive art projects, it's more of a
commentary for the choir than a goal-oriented political action. (dplanet
sux!)
Another example of prankish quasi-subversion: Bill Ripken, brother of
Cal Ripken the now-retired Baltimore Oriole baseball star, appeared in
his official Topps Baseball Card photograph in 1989 with a bat on which
he had written (or, as he alleges, a mischeivous teammate had written)
"Fuck Face". He even held the bat strategically so that the phrase was
easily visible:
http://www.snopes2.com/business/hidden/ripken.htm
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> On Behalf Of t.whid
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:56 PM
> To: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: You are the Agent of Alternative Reality
>
>
> note: i was referring to the mobile communication collection,
> apologies for not being clear.
>
> i looked this site over pretty closely a couple of weeks ago, looking
> specifically for images in the backgrounds that could be subversive.
> didn't see anything that would be noticeable enough to have an effect
> on an average viewer of these images and was left wondering what it's
> effect may be outside of those (like us) who are in on the joke.
>
> if an image makes it to a big campaign (highly unlikely) and enough
> people know it's 'subversive' then i suppose we can all laugh at the
> company. but i don't see this subverting anything other than the
> stock houses that may lose a minuscule amount of business (it could
> be argued that the images they sell are more satirical than the ones
> used at ACR) by people using these free ones.
>
> it's a catch-22, if the images were overtly subversive they wouldn't
> get past the clients. if you make the subversion too subtle they
> simply become free stock. i would argue that the photographer didn't
> hit the sweet spot in the middle.
>
> take care
>
> At 13:35 -0400 6/18/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
> >i agree that the poses aren't subversive. but there is a
> subtle laugh track
> >playing in the background... that is the element of
> resistance i think.
> >
> >
> >> from net art news:
> >>
> >> You are the Agent of Alternative Reality
> >>
> >> "Alternative Corporate Reality" (ACR) is a nose-thumbing tactical
> >> media project that tricks corporations into using anti-corporate
> >> icons in their own ad campaigns. Freelance graphic designers are
> >> challenged to download ACR stock photography and use it in ad
> >> campaigns for their corporate clients. This ACR stock photography
> >> features recognizable project organizer Damian Stephens in various
> >> mock-serious power poses. Participating designers then
> upload samples
> >> of their "subverted" corporate work to the ACR site as evidence of
> >> their bravado. More of a sly wink than a thrown brick, but every
> >> little bit counts when you're fighting the man.
> >>
> http://media.k10k.net/issues/issuewarp.php?ID7&URL=issues/i
ssue117/index.php
>>
twhid wrote:
>> this seems like a very interesting project, but the images aren't
>> anti-corporate or subversive in anyway that i can tell.
>>
>> simply labeling an image 'subversive' don't make it so.
>>
>> i don't see how this project works to 'subvert' anything at all,
>> except in the minds of few designers who are in the know.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
+ dirty.bomb$THpleted.uranium
-> Rhizome.org
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
Re: DEFINING MULTIMEDIA (2/4)
> Ken Jordan
> DEFINING MULTIMEDIA
> (2 of 4)
>
> [Note: This is part 2 of a paper-in-progress...
Couldn't paper-writers (you, Manovich, Ippolito, Cramer) publish this
stuff all in one peice instead of dribbling it out in irregularly-posted
incomplete segments? It's somewhat frustrating for me to read this if I
have no idea when the next part will come out. It looks like it might be
pretty darn interesting reading, but I'm not sure I could get your
paper's point or offer you comments to help you make that point if I'm
just reading 1/4 of it at a time. By the time part 4 comes out, I may
have deleted part 1!
I'm not trying to be persnickety, I just wonder if y'all are breaking up
your messages into segments because of some ancient Usenet custom or
because you have 14 baud modems or something.
Or do you and your peers write in such a way that the first pages are
nearly done even while the last pages are unstarted? That's strange to
me - I usually work on passages throughout a document simultaneously,
and I shift them around a lot, too. I could never consider one part
near-complete unless almost all of it was near-complete.
Just curious.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> DEFINING MULTIMEDIA
> (2 of 4)
>
> [Note: This is part 2 of a paper-in-progress...
Couldn't paper-writers (you, Manovich, Ippolito, Cramer) publish this
stuff all in one peice instead of dribbling it out in irregularly-posted
incomplete segments? It's somewhat frustrating for me to read this if I
have no idea when the next part will come out. It looks like it might be
pretty darn interesting reading, but I'm not sure I could get your
paper's point or offer you comments to help you make that point if I'm
just reading 1/4 of it at a time. By the time part 4 comes out, I may
have deleted part 1!
I'm not trying to be persnickety, I just wonder if y'all are breaking up
your messages into segments because of some ancient Usenet custom or
because you have 14 baud modems or something.
Or do you and your peers write in such a way that the first pages are
nearly done even while the last pages are unstarted? That's strange to
me - I usually work on passages throughout a document simultaneously,
and I shift them around a lot, too. I could never consider one part
near-complete unless almost all of it was near-complete.
Just curious.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
Re: Behavior, Aura
Keep talking about Behavior, folks, keep talking.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com <http://www.graphpaper.com/>
sci: http://www.askrom.com <http://www.askrom.com/>
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com <http://www.graphpaper.com/>
sci: http://www.askrom.com <http://www.askrom.com/>
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
Re: Net.Art Portrait of Edie Sedgwick
> A Single-Page, Six Rule Compliant Work of Net.Art
> by Eryk Salvaggio
>
> http://www.salsabomb.com/edie/edie.html
It's quite beautiful, actually.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> by Eryk Salvaggio
>
> http://www.salsabomb.com/edie/edie.html
It's quite beautiful, actually.
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com