[-empyre-] Re: what is it all good for/ Re: Adam and Regina and John
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: [-empyre-] Re: what is it all good for/ Re: Adam and Regina and John
- From: "roya.jakoby" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:42:26 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20030610020521.3DEBBFBDED5@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
> Adam wrote:
> I would be very interested to hear much more about your interest in Islamic
> art and its interaction between text and image. I also am very interested
> in this, although my knowledge is meagre, so I would love to hear how it
> figures in your work. Simon seems to be quite knowledgeable about this too.
I try to take to a couple of layers off current cultural notions of digital
art in order to open up some new perspectives. In the same time I also
introduce notions from a culture which has been branded (next to numerous
other things) as 'anti - image', but which is in it's basis just more
conscious about the combined use of visuals and narratives (I identify
narratives here as text/comments, though there are many more possible
Also, I want to make a cultural point here. Western culture is intertwined
with Islamic culture is (as it is with every culture on this planet, god
damn it..) and vice versa. Islamic art and culture is extremely rich and has
some extremely inspiring moments for everybody who is interested in
aesthetics and visual arts in general.
> ... your piece is in Flash - isn't that just another
> 'irritating and annoying' plug-in that is required to be installed?
I think I already answered this question in my last email. My piece is
available in 2 versions. DHTML and Flash.
in DHTML (please use Explorer or NS 4.7):
I'm not a great Flash fan myself. I like those funny screen effects you can
only achieve in 72dpi.
> Regina wrote:
>To Roya Jackobs who wrote:
(it's Roya Jakoby :-)
>It is interesting to say that we are not creating 3D. We are not able to do
>sculptures as Michelangelo done with softwares, I think. *Régis Debray
>wrote that all image is a lie.* What we are doing are only simulations of
>3D, as photography and some paintings - lies too . Turning to the begining
>of the last century when we had lots of Art Moviments which rejected
>perspective and launch abstract as Art because of the invention of the
>photography it sounds like a good issue to be investigate. Are we going back
>to the past - before of the invention of photography?
Can one reveal the truth through illusion? This is escape from the cave
through another cave question. (Why does this make me think of Harry
> John wrote:
>yeah, i'm damn frustrated about it too. its a particularly sore spot when you
consider that most of the new media art world is mac based (though that is
becoming less prevalent). for me its like being forced to use non-toxic
poster paint when i would rather work in oils.
I think I prefer the non-toxic poster paint when it comes to get something
out of computers.. I don't like to add to many layers of paint, but in the
end it's just a different approach (not an ideology).
> why does one have to be able to view a work on *their* machine. its as if the
ability to "poses" the work is essential for its apprehension. talk about
Maybe it's a good thing that I'm the 'accidental 3D' person around here.
Maybe big 3D is much more of a thing for real space / gallery / museums
presentation after all? The situation is comparable with other art
(traditional/new) genres where equipment and tools become increasingly
expensive (read exclusive) in order to add 'value' to the final piece (see
Rauschenberg's Titanium paintings). I personally don't have a lot of trust
yours truly, /roya.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and