ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Re: what is the most non_functional work on the Web done with Flash?
I'm not sure whether you're talking about the Shockwave or the Flash plugin Eryk, but, for the
information of the people who use Shockwave (Director) on the list, one can link, alternatively,
to
The Shockwave Players:
Windows
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_win> English, French and German
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerj_win> Japanese
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerk_win> Korean
Macintosh
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_mac> English, French, German, Japanese and
Korean
so that people download the plugin *directly* and can install it without the bumph from
Macromedia. This also precludes some of the installation problems that can otherwise occur. I
don't think it's in the Macromedia rules, but, as Eryk points out, the installation process is
rather unfair in its deflecting attention from the work to the plugin. Not only is it unfair,
but the installation does fail in some cases. Whereas downloading it directly, as above, does
not present that potential problem.
ja
> I downloaded flash again, after six months without, for sake of Michael's
> "Five Operas". After the, as the French say, "telechargement", I was shown
> not Michael's piece, but the shockwave logo, canned music and a delightful
> animation extolling the virtues of Shockwave. Only after closing this window
> (which conviniently opened full screen) was I able to see what I had
> obtained the plug in for.
information of the people who use Shockwave (Director) on the list, one can link, alternatively,
to
The Shockwave Players:
Windows
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_win> English, French and German
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerj_win> Japanese
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerk_win> Korean
Macintosh
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_mac> English, French, German, Japanese and
Korean
so that people download the plugin *directly* and can install it without the bumph from
Macromedia. This also precludes some of the installation problems that can otherwise occur. I
don't think it's in the Macromedia rules, but, as Eryk points out, the installation process is
rather unfair in its deflecting attention from the work to the plugin. Not only is it unfair,
but the installation does fail in some cases. Whereas downloading it directly, as above, does
not present that potential problem.
ja
> I downloaded flash again, after six months without, for sake of Michael's
> "Five Operas". After the, as the French say, "telechargement", I was shown
> not Michael's piece, but the shockwave logo, canned music and a delightful
> animation extolling the virtues of Shockwave. Only after closing this window
> (which conviniently opened full screen) was I able to see what I had
> obtained the plug in for.
Re: what is the best work on the Web done with Flash?
> I'm striking a polemic in contrast with the 'traditional' argument. Mainly
> rhetorical.
yes, house of the daunting tautology. you win the popularity contest.
now where is more great flash work? really outstanding stuff.
fahey's ada would be in there also.
ja
> rhetorical.
yes, house of the daunting tautology. you win the popularity contest.
now where is more great flash work? really outstanding stuff.
fahey's ada would be in there also.
ja
Re: what is the best work on the Web done with Flash?
> > > Reading between the lines, it almost looks as if you're saying, "The more
> > > complex the tool, the better the art." but of course we all know that that
> > > would be absurd.
> >
> >The more flexible the tool, the less one is forced into realizing a
> >default vision.
>
> THis is true. COnversely, in some cases there is a law of diminishing
> returns between the learning curve of the Swiss Army Knife and its
> capabilities. Sometimes Flash is more than sufficient for many
> applications.
Of course it is sufficient for many jobs.
> I would argue that Flash is becoming more akin to an
> Interpreted language, such as Basic, as the next version announced will
> allow the creation of stand-alone applications.
Projectors, you mean? Isn't it already capable of generating projectors? Or do these projectors
require the player also, currently?
> But this does not have much to do with my argument that some artists do not
> need to know programming to expound their ideas. Flash is truly not Bryce,
> which puts forth much tighter constraints to genre and style. In saying
> that Flash is an autoring environment that tightly constrains the artist, I
> would argue that this contention is weaker than other potential issues.
I agree that some peoples' art does not necessitate they learn programming.
Like any sufficiently powerful tool, Flash loosens up its defaults when you pry into its
mechanisms. But it does need to be approached with intelligence and art in order to loosen up.
> > > I know that Flash doesn't have the flexibility of true
> > > programming languages but it is still versatile enough to say that
> > there's no
> > > such thing as Flash-y Flash. There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash.
> >
> >A distinction without a difference.
>
> This reads to me that Flash is still Flash, no matter what you try to do
> with it. I hope I am wrong with this reading, as such an assertion is a bit
> unilateral, and suggests a polemic that does not accept any piece made in
> Flash as a viable artwork, or extremely few. This comes from many
> directions from artists not considering designers as worthy, or
> artist/programmers casting apersions towards artist/authors (as in
> multimedia authoring). I think that these are differences, and ones not
> too different from watercolor artists not accepting digital as viable, or
> even oils as viable. This argument is merely an expansion of a very narrow
> ongoing debate; a fairly weak one.
If you read the thread, you'll note I have posted links to several Flash works. It isn't a
matter of me not accepting any Flash work as art.
What does it mean to say "There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash."? Flash does have its
defaults that, unless one is conscious about them, result in the tool asserting its presence
more than the work itself, like 'photoshopped' bitmaps indiscriminately and clichedly filtered.
This is true of many other tools. But the more flexible a tool is, the less it will unavoidably
assert itself in what is produced with it, the more granular it will be in its possible
configurations.
Anyway, let's see some more Flash great works.
ja
> > > complex the tool, the better the art." but of course we all know that that
> > > would be absurd.
> >
> >The more flexible the tool, the less one is forced into realizing a
> >default vision.
>
> THis is true. COnversely, in some cases there is a law of diminishing
> returns between the learning curve of the Swiss Army Knife and its
> capabilities. Sometimes Flash is more than sufficient for many
> applications.
Of course it is sufficient for many jobs.
> I would argue that Flash is becoming more akin to an
> Interpreted language, such as Basic, as the next version announced will
> allow the creation of stand-alone applications.
Projectors, you mean? Isn't it already capable of generating projectors? Or do these projectors
require the player also, currently?
> But this does not have much to do with my argument that some artists do not
> need to know programming to expound their ideas. Flash is truly not Bryce,
> which puts forth much tighter constraints to genre and style. In saying
> that Flash is an autoring environment that tightly constrains the artist, I
> would argue that this contention is weaker than other potential issues.
I agree that some peoples' art does not necessitate they learn programming.
Like any sufficiently powerful tool, Flash loosens up its defaults when you pry into its
mechanisms. But it does need to be approached with intelligence and art in order to loosen up.
> > > I know that Flash doesn't have the flexibility of true
> > > programming languages but it is still versatile enough to say that
> > there's no
> > > such thing as Flash-y Flash. There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash.
> >
> >A distinction without a difference.
>
> This reads to me that Flash is still Flash, no matter what you try to do
> with it. I hope I am wrong with this reading, as such an assertion is a bit
> unilateral, and suggests a polemic that does not accept any piece made in
> Flash as a viable artwork, or extremely few. This comes from many
> directions from artists not considering designers as worthy, or
> artist/programmers casting apersions towards artist/authors (as in
> multimedia authoring). I think that these are differences, and ones not
> too different from watercolor artists not accepting digital as viable, or
> even oils as viable. This argument is merely an expansion of a very narrow
> ongoing debate; a fairly weak one.
If you read the thread, you'll note I have posted links to several Flash works. It isn't a
matter of me not accepting any Flash work as art.
What does it mean to say "There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash."? Flash does have its
defaults that, unless one is conscious about them, result in the tool asserting its presence
more than the work itself, like 'photoshopped' bitmaps indiscriminately and clichedly filtered.
This is true of many other tools. But the more flexible a tool is, the less it will unavoidably
assert itself in what is produced with it, the more granular it will be in its possible
configurations.
Anyway, let's see some more Flash great works.
ja
Re: what is the best work on the Web done with Flash?
> Reading between the lines, it almost looks as if you're saying, "The more
> complex the tool, the better the art." but of course we all know that that
> would be absurd.
The more flexible the tool, the less one is forced into realizing a default vision.
> I know that Flash doesn't have the flexibility of true
> programming languages but it is still versatile enough to say that there's no
> such thing as Flash-y Flash. There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash.
A distinction without a difference.
> Who
> cares about the difference in speed between Action Script and Lingo? What
> does that have to do with creativity and art?
When you want to do something that is too slow in Flash, do you go ahead and do it or do you say
'ah, can't do it, forget it'?
That is what it has to do with creativity and art.
> And I wouldn't go so far as to
> say that "...Flash is the result of a compromise with the quality one expects
> of work on the Web" It's more like painting with a limited palette.
The same limited palette as two million others.
ja
> complex the tool, the better the art." but of course we all know that that
> would be absurd.
The more flexible the tool, the less one is forced into realizing a default vision.
> I know that Flash doesn't have the flexibility of true
> programming languages but it is still versatile enough to say that there's no
> such thing as Flash-y Flash. There's trend-y flash but not Flash-y flash.
A distinction without a difference.
> Who
> cares about the difference in speed between Action Script and Lingo? What
> does that have to do with creativity and art?
When you want to do something that is too slow in Flash, do you go ahead and do it or do you say
'ah, can't do it, forget it'?
That is what it has to do with creativity and art.
> And I wouldn't go so far as to
> say that "...Flash is the result of a compromise with the quality one expects
> of work on the Web" It's more like painting with a limited palette.
The same limited palette as two million others.
ja
Re: what is the best work on the Web done with Flash?
This is one of those discussion subjects that pop up quite frequently on
the list. Admittedly, a lot of Flash stuff has a similar feel to it but
that's mostly just due to trends that come up. But Flash is an extremely
versatile programming environment and to say that something is really
"Flash"-y is like saying that something is really "Java"-y, "C++"-y or
whatever so why does Flash always have to fall under this type of scrutiny?
I'm not sure how big the Java interpreter download is; probably at least
7mb, which is the size of the Shockwave (Director) plugin; whereas the Flash
plugin download is about 1/14th of that, somewhere around 500kb.
This larger size is interesting; it is both the source of greater
possibility than exists in Flash and the main reason why Flash is so much
more popular in the commercial realm; people don't have to download a 7mb
plugin.
Flash is also popular because it allows non-programmers to do quite a bit
that has, previously, been associated with the activity of programming.
Director also does this, but the animation drawing tools in Director are not
as good as in Flash.
So there are 2 million users of Flash and 200,000 users of Director. I
don't know how many users of Java there are, but art done in Java
programming is even more rare than work done in Shockwave (Director).
The need for tools which allow non-programmers to accomplish results
normally associated with the activity of programming is ongoing. Flash is
the most popular of the RAD tools (rapid application development). Visual
Basic, Delphi, C++ Builder, and Director are also set up so that one has
access to a graphical authoring environment and access to a wide range of
pre-written behaviors and one doesn't have to program to do many things in
these environments, but programming is nonetheless unavoidable in them, at a
certain point. Flash pushes this point back some distance.
Given the large user-base of Flash and the reluctance of the commercial
sector to subject customers to a 7mb download, work done in Flash outnumbers
work done on the Web with other tools, at this point, like ten to one.
But the popularity of Flash is the result of a compromise with the quality
one expects of work on the Web.
To compare Flash with Java, C++, or Director in its flexibility is a bit
off, Pall. Certainly it has a programming language associated with it
(Actionscript), but this language is 30-60 times slower than Director's
Lingo scripting language; it would fare even worse in comparison with Java
and C++. And it is not merely slower but less comprehensive in its abilities
to manipulate and coordinate media. It is far less 'granular'.
It's likely that in the future, whether the same players are present or
not, we will see a similar situation: the most popular tools will be those
which sacrifice granularity in favor of small download size for the plugin
(or reader/interpreter) and relatively easy and powerful access for
non-programmers.
This tailors the expectations we have for work on the Web to the needs of
the commercial sector and to non-programmers.
Which is probably as it must be.
But art is a bit different from the commercial sector. Our expectations
concerning what passes for interesting net.art needn't be conditioned to the
lowest common denominator.
ja
the list. Admittedly, a lot of Flash stuff has a similar feel to it but
that's mostly just due to trends that come up. But Flash is an extremely
versatile programming environment and to say that something is really
"Flash"-y is like saying that something is really "Java"-y, "C++"-y or
whatever so why does Flash always have to fall under this type of scrutiny?
I'm not sure how big the Java interpreter download is; probably at least
7mb, which is the size of the Shockwave (Director) plugin; whereas the Flash
plugin download is about 1/14th of that, somewhere around 500kb.
This larger size is interesting; it is both the source of greater
possibility than exists in Flash and the main reason why Flash is so much
more popular in the commercial realm; people don't have to download a 7mb
plugin.
Flash is also popular because it allows non-programmers to do quite a bit
that has, previously, been associated with the activity of programming.
Director also does this, but the animation drawing tools in Director are not
as good as in Flash.
So there are 2 million users of Flash and 200,000 users of Director. I
don't know how many users of Java there are, but art done in Java
programming is even more rare than work done in Shockwave (Director).
The need for tools which allow non-programmers to accomplish results
normally associated with the activity of programming is ongoing. Flash is
the most popular of the RAD tools (rapid application development). Visual
Basic, Delphi, C++ Builder, and Director are also set up so that one has
access to a graphical authoring environment and access to a wide range of
pre-written behaviors and one doesn't have to program to do many things in
these environments, but programming is nonetheless unavoidable in them, at a
certain point. Flash pushes this point back some distance.
Given the large user-base of Flash and the reluctance of the commercial
sector to subject customers to a 7mb download, work done in Flash outnumbers
work done on the Web with other tools, at this point, like ten to one.
But the popularity of Flash is the result of a compromise with the quality
one expects of work on the Web.
To compare Flash with Java, C++, or Director in its flexibility is a bit
off, Pall. Certainly it has a programming language associated with it
(Actionscript), but this language is 30-60 times slower than Director's
Lingo scripting language; it would fare even worse in comparison with Java
and C++. And it is not merely slower but less comprehensive in its abilities
to manipulate and coordinate media. It is far less 'granular'.
It's likely that in the future, whether the same players are present or
not, we will see a similar situation: the most popular tools will be those
which sacrifice granularity in favor of small download size for the plugin
(or reader/interpreter) and relatively easy and powerful access for
non-programmers.
This tailors the expectations we have for work on the Web to the needs of
the commercial sector and to non-programmers.
Which is probably as it must be.
But art is a bit different from the commercial sector. Our expectations
concerning what passes for interesting net.art needn't be conditioned to the
lowest common denominator.
ja