Re: [-empyre-] bandwidth aesthetics

[Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net>]

The Voices in my Head tell me that on 4/6/04 9:35 PM, Alan Sondheim at
sondheim@panix.com wrote:

> 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 -

Yes, in terms of actual object resolution. I would humbly suggest that other
than being "hopeless, jerky, and tentative" there is a WORLD of difference
between the access the ruling corporate classes have to the internet and the
rest of us poor mizzable critturs hitchhiking the infobahn.

I think I mentioned this previously, but I would like to underline it:

We all ship the same twitchy little movies, but BMW will be able deal with a
jillion more hits on a twitchy little movie than my own site. Why? Because
the amount of information transfer is something you pay for, and that's why
the notion of a "Free Internet" is such an absurdity.

Sure: I can supply an hour long 720 x 480 movie in MiniDV compression from
my website. Twice. And then I will have exceeded the terms of my monthly
contract with sbcglobal, and they would shut my site down, mondo pronto. Any
Downloads after that would make my phone bill...ummmmm.... "excessive"...

I frequently visit slashdot.org, and they frequently destroy people's
websites just by loving them. Some poor shmoe has a wacky cool thing he put
up on his website (say, instructions on a computer made out of mahogany, or
an apartment completely lit with LEDs) and BOOM. Within the course of an
hour, the site goes down from the millions of hits it has sustained. It's
called the "slashdot effect". It's kind of like a friendly DOS attack.

The flip side is, BMW would easily weather a slashdotting. They have all the
bandwidth in the world. And that's the socio-political chokehold between the
giant corporations and the rest of us. It's completely asymmetric.


> 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...

No kiddin. I honestly have no idea who they think they're sending data to.
 
> 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 -

Yes and no. I would predict that just as bandwidth / quality gets on line,
the standards get moved (again) to a point outside that of mere mortals.

Example: Digital Video. It's finally to the point where I can pick up a
Canon miniDV ZR whatever for $350 (sure it's a single chip with a plastic
lens, but it's still one HELL of a lot better than the VHS monstrosity I
spent 3x as much money on just 10 years ago) and in 2006 it's all going HD,
and anything you shoot today on the cheapy ZR whatever is going to have a
short shelf life...VERY short shelf life.

How long will it take for a 3 chip HDV camera running 1040 or 1080p to cost
$350- probably right around the time HD is subsumed into whatever follows
on.

I agree that in 20 years things are going to be a good bit different
(Assuming the likes of George Bush et al don't turn the USA into a typical
authoritarian disaster with no middle class) with better faster gear, but I
would also submit that the the standards of optimal quality will shift with
it, and only those persons or corporations with enormous pockets are going
to have the green stuff to cover the cost and get the access.

It seems there is some kind of major stipulating going on, much as there is
in the video art scene, where all the totally mindblowing graphics are done
for major studios and not video galleries - i.e., if one expects things to
look grainy with smeary colour, horrible lighting, and tinny sound, it can
be stipulated so, and then one can look at the video's content.

With online video - one naturally assumes the quality is going to suck
horribly, and so one looks to other qualia for understanding. Incorporating
the distortion not as something to be celebrated, but to be ignored. This
allows for a video viewing for what the video can say rather than for what
it is doing. 

And that it is all a product of political economy... People wonder why I get
grumpy.

Good thing I'm totally exhausted right now and won't remember any of this in
the morning.

HW