Jim Andrews
Since the beginning
Works in Victoria Canada

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.
Discussions (847) Opportunities (2) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Boxer Match


> I just see a lot of work that has gotten attention that
> doesn't stack up, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in those
> cases the criticism isn't deserved. This is actually welcome, as
> it signals
> the coming of New Media's age of majority.

Our greatest strengths and deepest weaknesses are tragically/comically
entwined.

One of the great strengths of new media work is that if it's new, people
aren't quite sure what to make of it. It's outside of the easy categories.
Or parts of it are.

Fresh experience is possible here. Fresh apprehension.

But, additionally, people are going to have a hard time speaking about it
and 'assessing' it.

So there will be much confusion, in that regard.

Strong difficult work will be met mostly with incomprehension. Though there
will be some who get it. It might age slightly better.

Relatively easy, simple, strong work will be well received. At least
initially.

Related to but not the same as popularity of flash vs director.

authors/audience.

short term/longer term.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Boxer


> I got the feeling that the article was a personal assessment of what she
> dislikes about interactive art and that it had very little to do with
> the work being shown. The opening line "Interactive art is irritating."
> says to me that she already held this opinion before she went to the show.
>
> Pall

Could be.

She says, of one piece (
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html?pagewanted=2 ),
"No one wants to be the first to paw the idol. And once you do, it's not
clear what effect you are having." That's in a situation where a group is
viewing an interactive piece meant for one person interaction. Best to think
about the audience's point of view and the interactor's point of view in
that situation. If you want volunteers, they need to know how to use the
piece or there will be few brave souls.

Her "problem 1", ie, the "dirty secrets", well, that seemed more like her
problem. Kind of a prudish reaction. Not enough info to know whether the
actual art was interesting. Presumably it said more than "I like to
masturbate in public" and "I have memories of places I've never been to."
Sounds like it put her off exploring more.

She says "problem No. 3: [is] ungraciousness. Machines make no bones about
their own flaws, but are unbending about yours." Ungraciousness. Hmm. The
example she gives is the rock paper scissors piece. Sounds like kind of bad
design on that one. It cheats and you have to align your hand exactly right.
I don't think that's so much 'ungraciousness' as bad design where the
interaction hasn't been thought through fully.

And her "problem No. 4: moral superiority." People put the effort in to
interact and are then punished for it, in her example. The mechanism works
but the art is dysfunctional.

I think she's got a legitimate beef in that a lot of the interactive art
I've experienced is lame. But, then, so is a lot of the rest of art.
Interactive art isn't inherantly more interesting than regular art. It takes
as much doing as reg art. Also, people will say of reg art 'it works' or 'it
doesn't work' and they're being vague and pseudo critical. but with
interactive art, at least at the level of the mechanisms, they can make the
same sort of comment and mean it literally. if the mechanisms aren't working
well, then it's going to be difficult or impossible to experience the art
well. and the mechanisms are usually kind of flaky. then there's the
experience of the art (though they're not so separable). And that's got to
be artistically happnin.

I just think it's hard to make good art, reg or interactive. For every piece
we experience that blows our mind, we see 20 others that are whatever. It
seems worthwhile, though, for the experience of the odd mind blower, and
many of the others have much to recommend them.

All art, mind blowing or not, is doomed to failure in a culture such as this
one, in a sense. On the other hand, there is a sense in which only art is
worthwhile in this sort of culture. Interactive or not.

Boxer should be allowed to be prickly.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Boxer


Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Boxer> Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate
description of what the public-at-large experiences.

I didn't really get a sense from the article whether the problems she
mentioned were her problems or problems of the work. The interactivity in
digital art is often poorly conceived and creates pointless interactivity.
But, by the same token, many people do not have the computer literacy to
interact appropriately with well-programmed, well-designed, well-conceived
interfaces. It wasn't clear to me which was the case, or whether it was some
mixture.

Of course, the challenge, both to artists and the audience, of such
communication also poses the possibility of fresh art. And there is lots of
common ground in understanding how computer interfaces typically work. And
other interfaces. And what they do...

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

re net art market she shoots she scores


i wonder how the different financial pressures different places exert on
people shape attitudes to art, and what is 'viable' and 'of value'?

on a related though slightly digressive note, we are having a great
television hockey season. much like the net (not the one with goalposts). i
watch tv by no schedule, channel surf sporadically. i might find a game from
the swedish league on. or one from the junior leagues. or even more
junior--this season i've seen a championship pee wee game (12 year olds).
and have seen international 'under 17' games. and AHL games. And the
Canadian women's team. And local hockey on TV. And it's just as interesting
to watch as NHL games. Moreso in certain ways. It isn't bloodsport. The best
game I've seen this year was the Canadian University championship game.
Excellent! I like the net approach to televised hockey: diversity.

When professional dominance of the media fails, we discover the televised
game in a fresh way and are able to see the relevance of the professional is
highly constructed, artificial. once the strike is over, this diversity of
televised hockey will diminish, no doubt, to the previous state. but that is
not so much because it's what people want as what the machines of capitalist
media prefer as high octane fuel (to make and take money).

ja
http://vispo.com