seems to be two thingies going on here, one is vvork's presentation [sally] the other is the guthrie's nicely phrased "X - Y - Z" style of archetype vvork art.
the XYZ thing is, to me, natural to computers...the data comes in, who cares from where/as what, you can do something to it, and then the data goes out - also who cares to where/as what. so you wanna take stock market info [x] and turn it [y] into music [z], or you wanna use your atari joystick [x] to change the color and placement of text [y] on a tv screen [z] or you wanna take your whatever "physical computing" sensor interface [x] and use it to turn [y] lights on an off on a building [z]...it's like every single piece ends up being just an iteration of the same translation excercise.
i suppose im describing something as much NYU ITP/MIT style art as vvork art, but regardless it's one of the reasons why i don't pay much attention to any of it...and i dont make that stuff [or any interactive art] cos i dont wanna to get stuck using the rest of my life in an attempt to make the "best" XYZ. i also teach one day/week on an "interactive digital media" masters course and my students use the this XYZ form as justification for why their pieces should exist, if it fits the XYZ and uses a computer then it's cool, but for the most part they could be rolling dice for what X Y and Z are supposed to be and their work would be just as un-engaging. i keep telling them that they are only to use this stuff as thought excercises and that, at the moment, i see it as a model for making art that has no upside, but it's not working :(
|
the XYZ thing is, to me, natural to computers...the data comes in, who cares from where/as what, you can do something to it, and then the data goes out - also who cares to where/as what. so you wanna take stock market info [x] and turn it [y] into music [z], or you wanna use your atari joystick [x] to change the color and placement of text [y] on a tv screen [z] or you wanna take your whatever "physical computing" sensor interface [x] and use it to turn [y] lights on an off on a building [z]...it's like every single piece ends up being just an iteration of the same translation excercise.
i suppose im describing something as much NYU ITP/MIT style art as vvork art, but regardless it's one of the reasons why i don't pay much attention to any of it...and i dont make that stuff [or any interactive art] cos i dont wanna to get stuck using the rest of my life in an attempt to make the "best" XYZ. i also teach one day/week on an "interactive digital media" masters course and my students use the this XYZ form as justification for why their pieces should exist, if it fits the XYZ and uses a computer then it's cool, but for the most part they could be rolling dice for what X Y and Z are supposed to be and their work would be just as un-engaging. i keep telling them that they are only to use this stuff as thought excercises and that, at the moment, i see it as a model for making art that has no upside, but it's not working :(
- p.d. 4-13-2007 9:50 pm