Re: [-empyre-] Re: 3D in Gallery Space - complexity

[<tom@nullpointer.co.uk>]

> As Lisa Jevbratt has been indicating recently, there is nothing wrong with
> allowing representation to be complex or difficult, and asking viewer to
> work harder to understand it.

too right!
I'm sick of vague 'screensaver' artworks that 'my mum' would like.
Just because digital art can be technically complex doesn't mean to say
we should provide simplistic work to coax in the uninitiated viewer.
This is just patronising. You are not expected to understand the
embalming process to look at a damien hirst or bronze casting to enjoy
Gormley (although if it encourages you to investigate these processes then
good!)
Viewers bring their own perspectives and knowledge to a peice and I think
that
there are an increasing set of viewers that find current 'digital art'
unsatisfying
precisely because it isn't challenging in any way. (they've got better stuff
at home on their pcs)
There are enough 'pleasant' and shallowly 'interactive' peices around, but
do they say anything more than
'see what flash5/vrml/director can do'? Unfortunately both the internet and
the gallery
usually force things to the 'lowest common denominator' where interaction is
reduced to an apple mac one paw mouse or a fuzzy trackball with wonky
buttons (perhaps if such interfaces were a comment on this dilemma?)
Anyway I suppose as an artist working in this field I long to see work that
challenges me more and I'm sure that i'm not alone....

Tom
http://www.nullpointer.co.uk