Ivan Redi on 20 Feb 2001 11:17:02 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> Re: Re: net art history |
For me, there is a certain connection between net-art-history and cyberspace discussion. In both cases there are some incompatibility between the description (or definition), and the visualization of the phenomena. Or maybe we just don’t have the answer yet (or we do not need it). As an architect I see the world mostly in a visual description of some strategical concept of the spatial parameters (real and virtual at the same time). One of the major questions is about the media one use (and also understanding) to achieve this. Net.art: is this art in net, or art about net, or hypertext description of art, or rhetorical dilemma what art in general should be presented in net. Does it go beyond ugly designed web pages, pure presentation of the canvases done in atelier, boring pages of ASCII dogmas of “something”, technological experiments of things never worked and never will (or if working then simple: 2 web cams and a video beam – with a load of textual explanations), or it has more aesthetical demands than flash opening intro for nike.com (although this is a hard topic, therefore I would rather use German word “kontrolliertes Gestalten”)? Cyberspace is term coming for the textual description and therefore it is almost impossible to answer: “if there is a space in cyberspace”, at least for our brain to translate it to an image so we can really understand it as space (except for spoiled Hollywood audience in digital SFX sequences in some movies). That is also a main difference between audience and public (the audience expects a certain image, and for the public image not present and so not really relevant). But, 10 years ago, by showing the artists how surf the Internet, the writers how to use Microsoft Word, and explaining the architects the possibilities of the 3d software and the computer technology in general, has been produced a perfect confusion. If you read the work manifestos of some high profile architectural offices (especially in USA), you can find them very funny, because they sound like a bad written (or translated) user manuals of some programs (for example Maya, 3d Studio, etc.). Robbin Murphy writes in a previous posting: “Art students all want to make Jurrasic Park these days”. Not only art students, but also architectural students on the first place. Well, the answer is: because it is easy. It is nice and sophisticated to swim in a virtuallity (building on the principles of old Rome), because of its endless patience. Endless freedom of creativity in a known context. As for the architecture as so for the art (net art), the time has come, to produce relevant artistic and cultural content for the future environments. With one, and crucial, difference that we relay on media theory (und understanding), and not theory of the reinforced concrete (I hear my colleges laughing behind my back). This is not a formal issue. best regards ivan redi ortlos. ------------------------------------------------ # # --> o r t l o s a r c h i t e c t s - oeg <-- # experimental architecture & interface design # (ivan redi.andrea schroettner.martin fruehwirth) # # http://www.ortlos.com ------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold