Re: transparency was Re: [-empyre-] point of reference
- To: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: transparency was Re: [-empyre-] point of reference
- From: Chris Ashley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jzR8ho+1we9dASHY1APPCxuvjShPkB7ceI5+xRiUjjiE+yuooeJfMJFCKy2zfAIOd5GMmo0X73Vdzh0xYOOc9PWm3nXTnACRbmOjW93M8G4mzTkpzn7Ibp3btR0IB5RsItBJJ1D1UK+LL2zTYPETT3iTGpmas24jr+8SFRLwgcg= ;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
--- //jonCates <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> how you are thinking of RSS as making audiences
> obviously transparent?
Tools that show who is supplying and who is receiving
RSS show the supplier who their audience is. On the
web, of course, one doesn't always know who the
> also, do you think of those you connect w/online +
> those who download +
> engage w/your work as participants [+/or] as a
> community rather than
> [+/or] as well as a traditional (art) audience?
No, I personally don't think of the audience as
participants. I think of them as a traditional
audience. The weblog exists for me more as a work
place, and after years of experience in interactive
educational technology and communities I'm happy to
not have to be engaged in an interactive way with an
audience. I don't want to think about the audience.
The HTML drawings are one aspect of my art practice-
when I think about audience it changes the work, and
tends towards things that I feel are pandering.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and