>Damien: please give examples RE:
>>As I see it, in good net art the technology is largely transparent in that it does not get in the way of the intent of the work (unless the intent is about the technology).
Hmm, telephones, the pen, Quake... to be idealistic, I simply mean that the interactive experience is generally as intuitive and seamless as possible (although learned)... the users awareness is not distracted by technical and interactive issues, they are completely engaged with the work.
>its not just about creating an illusion, but instead the technologies stage their own interventions.
yep, the art points beyond "the medium"
with abstracted/symbolic resonances in the work.. hopefully the user is transported,or consumed by their "understanding" of this experience.
>where Melinda presented it before an astonished audience... It was one of the best artistical and emotional experiences I remember in my life. Melinda went through her piece, bit by bit, illustrating a bit of their context and background. Simply beautyful.
>But when I later went to see it online, despite trying and being in the right mood, I couldn't replicate the experience. They were the same
objects and animation, but the artistic expression was gone... I'm not sure if it's me or it may be that the ultimate experience, still, needs a performer, and that, if this is the case, the narrative can only be linear.
or poli-linear with multiple performers / perspective points perhaps? The idea of a directive agent is quite important.. how well can a play or film work without someone / someprocess directing/conducting it, with a complete understanding of the essential issues and ideal ways of presenting them?
This issue was investigated in an earlier work of Melinda's, "carrier" where I worked with her to produce a java based AI agent to interact with and lead the user though the site.
>> One of the most pleasurable things about digi work is that it evolves - it follows organic principles.
>I really don't get this. How do you mean it evolves? As far as I know, it can only evolve id the "artist" (or coder) changes or adds code. Unless you talk about genetically generated shapes. But I'm rather skeptical about their artistic value. And even in this case, they only evolve as a projection of a will from their creator/coder. With the difference that it takes much more expertiuse in coding to generate shapes dynamically.
Many beautiful algorithms are based on organic metaphores, neurophysiology and the net, digital DNA, artificial life...
The main reason I've been working in the area of generative programming is to evolve my limited imagination, and make original art/music.
By creating agents to inhabit new worlds of computational possibility, I allow them to suggest interesting manifestations.
A simple example of is at: http://hompepage.mac.com/musonica/
A 11k (no sound)java applet based loosely on kandinski's ideas on point, line and plane, and the brains inherent habit of constructing meaning. (that textbox controls the speed of generation in milliseconds, 1000ms=1sec)
Every frame is a chance combination of visual elements and a word, which I would most likely never have previously considered. As a stocastic(constrained random) process, its constraints are the encoded aesthetic framework. After this I have no control over what it then generates... and although some image iterations might not be incredibly inspired, there are a few gems that shine thu...
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and