Re: [-empyre-] bandwidth aesthetics

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

Hi - your analysis was completely fascinating. One difference between
early video is that - then - we (I was showing at that time) were against
what appeared to be a standard - the NTSC signal and Network distribution,
at least in the United States. We were constantly tuning, and our work was
seen against that backdrop. In terms of distribution, we were by and large
excluded from the Network - but they were there. In other words, there was
full bandwidth at the time vis-a-vis the television networks, and the
early works you mention and others were against that backdrop, and to a
great extent critical of it. Finally, an artist could control her/his own
image on the tube - television was no longer simply delivered, but could
also be emanated, transmitted.

Today, the aesthetics of bandwidth online, apart from I2, is the same for
all of us; if someone puts up a quicktime movie, whether it's done by BMW
or you, the speed is controlled by server, transmission bandwidth, and
reception - there's no absolute standard one is up against. This is in
other words, a _general_ aesthetics of bandwidth -

And with that, there are other considerations as well - for example
ascii.art, MOOs and MUDs etc. etc. which take very very little bandwith,
as opposed to the museums (for example in SF) that practically demand
cable modem to see "their" products and productions...

And this aesthetics will change for all of us; in 20 years, if things keep
developing, if the world doesn't burn at the seams, what we're doing now
will seem hopeless, jerky, tentative - we're in a feed-forward
fast-forward zone -

Alan

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com