RE: [-empyre-] picking up on some themes

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> >>  We have all seen work that is strong technically but does not seem
> >consequential as art.
> >
> >yes, it is a continual struggle to find the balance / one's niche. I think
> >that if the tech is driven by an idea to explore rather than just parading
> >tech skills, then you're probably OK.
>
> doesn't this also mean the audience has to have a similar level of
> technical skill or your understanding of exploration to appreciate
> the difference?

No, it doesn't, Lloyd, and this is kind of interesting. Some great programming work is for kids
and adults. The programming is necessary in it but the interface is gronkable by kids and
adults. If you check out, say, any of these links, you'll see what i mean.

http://electrica.leonid.de
http://www.theremediproject.com/projects/issue7/squidsoupuntitled/index.html
http://potatoland.org
http://sodaplay.com/
http://www.stanza.co.uk/
http://www.lecielestbleu.com/media/oeilcomplexframe.htm
http://www.flyingpuppet.com
http://www.pianographique.com/
http://www.gratin.org/as
http://vispo.com/nio
http://vispo.com/arteroids
http://vispo.com/animisms
http://vispo.com/vismu

I could go on at some length here, Lloyd, but that should do for the moment.

> how would someone with minimal|different technical skills or
> experience negotiate this type of work?
> [often in this circumstance surface detail becomes the only focus]

As you see in the above work, it is relatively easy to negotiate because it is cognizant of what
we do with a computer all the time anyway, never mind net.art. One merely has to look at what is
in front of one's nose, as per usual. that's usually what escapes us. artists of a particular
medium have a way of bringing it home.

> I have often found many works that involve complex technical skills
> that others find to be 'inconsequential' as 'art'  just as engaging
> as the ones that have 'nice ideas' but use 'safe' tech delivery.

Sure. Me too. Who cares really what tech is used? The consequence of the experience is not only
sensorial but conceptual and there's no prying them apart, really.

> ...sometimes the ugly pointless failures of exploration are just
> using technologies that seem to be unfashionable.
>
> ...on the other hand I have seen some pretty dire works that seem to
> be popular as 'consequential' art

Me too. At least there's less institutional pretension about these days. But then there's less
institutional dollars too. A sad farewell to the institutional dollars. A fond farewell to
considerable snot. Problem was it just wasn't dedicated snot, or it was snot that could not
truly afford its kleenex. The artists make the art anyway, and it will be up to them to make the
dough, not the institutions. Forget the snot. But not demanding and visionary art.

ja