RE: [-empyre-] Viewing Axalotls

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

> >>>>>>>>I did not understand very well what you are saying , but
> my "Games"
> are not  really Games, they are more/less games, they are  interfaces to
> show thoughts. In fact it would be impossible for me to build a good game
> in the strict sense of the term. I never had the intention of
> doing this. To
> do an excellent game is necessary to be a programmer or to work
> with someone
> else who knows how programming. However I can appreciate a good
> Art Game as
> Arteroides, for example.
>
> Regina

Sorry, Regina. Basically I meant to say that I like the way "Viewing
Axalotls" ( http://arteonline.arq.br/viewing_axolotls ) makes us question
our notions of what a game is, and also I like the way it explores relations
between game and art. Probably several people on the list who make
interactive work have had the experience where they make a piece that is
interactive and some people remark that it felt sort of like a game. And
these are invariably from people who enjoyed the piece. So there are these
interesting connections between art, play, and game.

The game section of "Viewing Axalotls" is only one of the sections. There
are others. This is another aspect of the work. You approach the work from
several different perspectives and activities. It is fun to make connections
between the different parts of the piece. They are the fundamental 'building
blocks' of the piece.

I suppose your use of the game motif is partly to tie the seven sections
together?

ja