[-empyre-] "Surpassing the function of the device"

[Jun-Ann Lam <jaxal@netspace.net.au>]

>But then again, artists surpassing the function of the device...

Are you really surpassing the function of the device? IT bears
reexamination. You may have perhaps redefined its use but the device itself
functions only to its technical capacity.

And with regard to the case of "Is it not the purpose of Art to trancend
the medium in which it is based?"
I would argue that no art transcends the medium. Only the artist transcends
the medium as the artist can transcend anything, spiritually or mentally.
But the physical world remains as it is, unchanged unless other forces
change it, notwithstanding natural forces which are by definition a force.

Art is not self-defining either. It is merely a part of the mechanism; one
cog in the wheel. What an artist may choose to do is put a hammer to it but
it is an entity far larger than any artist. Like energy, it is impossible
to destroy. It merely changes form.

Ultimately, does choice not come into it? I have found through my own
experiences that the online medium lacks what I need for a certain kind of
experience. It is a statement of fact, and not a value judgement. Now,
comments about someone's art; that is something else. And so is the
argument that an artist should transcend the medium...I thought there was
choice in the matter and FREEWILL. Or do we now embark on the argument for
determinism?

>this is precicely what i mean. there is _absolutly nothing_ avail
>today that i would consider to be a "technical wonder" or even very
>well designed (and especially not anything from Macromedia.)

which brings me back to the PROMISE. Has it not failed you? Have you not
had to remap your expectations according to your experience of the device
and not the PROMISE of what it could have been?

I interrupt this brilliant discussion to ask:
Have you kept abreast of the latest debarcle concerning our "Honourable"
Governor General? I've been thinking hard about it and have decided that no
manner of reason or excuse could ever explain why the man dismissed the
matter of sexual abuse in his Anglican diocese without further ado. If he
says there was not enough evidence, then an enquiry should have been made.
It never was. And if he knew more than he claims he did, then why did he
not act upon it? Dr Hollingsworth was also involved in the largest
settlement of a legal action against the church in brisbane for...yes,
that's it, sexual abuse.

The Governor General, OUR GG, was picked by the other dickhead in
government, the "Honourable" John Howard, the PM of this country, the bane
of our existence, the perpetual embarassment (I cite the case of the TAMPA,
SORRY, et al and one other horrid case which can not be mentioned due to
legal implications but anyone wishing to know, especially anyone who is
pregnant should email me privately). I believe that religion and government
should remain separate. Should a religious figurehead have been picked as
the head of this country? Let's face it, the head of this country is the
GG, representing the queen, who covered up the sexual abuse of children, in
the name of GOD. He has refused to resign. Has the man no shame? Our PM is
a f@@kwit, American toadying (I cite the Kyoto Accord, and his performance
at US Congress in the first days after Sept 11), right wing moralising
immoral politically manipulative all on his own Axis of Evil.

Wow, What a legacy to call our history...

JA