hi reiner and list
>the "mechanical" interactivity (where an action shows an "effect")
action and effect to me is a form of reaction but not necessarily
interaction...
to me interactivity is a complex process where two actors alternately listen
think and speak(in general terms you could also say input proces output) .
Those two perform some kind of power over eachother in terms of
action-reaction but also influence each other.
but that instantly raises the question how to influence a computer that is
pre-programmed?
is interactivity in daily life (a conversation, playing tennis) different
from interactivity in art ? if so what's the difference
I also understand what you mean by the 'mental' interactivity but if the
work only influences me and there is no way for me to influence the work is
that 'inter'activity? isn't interactivy a reciprocal activity, both parties
get something out of it?
>in contrast to Benjamin it is not the aura of the object/art piece which is
> important but "the aura/spirit" generated in the mind of the
> "viewer"[public]
could you elaborate on this?
gr cyper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reiner Strasser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Too Interactive: Nov theme of the month
> Hi list -
>
> i am a bit confused about the use of the wor.d "inter.activity".
>
> for me "interactivity"
> has (at least) a double_meaning
> the "mechanical" interactivity (where an action shows an "effect")
> and
> the "mental/mind_y" interactivity (where the mind [intellect/emotion] of
the
> recipient changes - closing the circle between - work and recipient).
> looking only at the mechanical part as a criterium is a bit senseless in
my
> sight.
> it is a communication process between work and recipient.
> (you need an "open" "viewer/experiencer" for this - else ...........
> but it is not as different with other arts ..........)
> (in contrast to Benjamin it is not the aura of the object/art piece which
is
> important but "the aura/spirit" generated in the mind of the
> "viewer"[public]).
>
> >According to me the user plays an important part in creating the piece
> like ever - and more now/here
> >(maybe even co-creators).
> would be nice to have a "creative" user - - -
> would be nice - "everyone is an artists" (what a beautiful world)
> >so who in the end has control over the work? Who has the rights?
> when the "art-piece" is/has some "scientific intelligence" and learns by
> itself in communication with the user .......... no question.
> i have to confess that i have enough trouble and pleasure with the human
> spirit ................ (as an artist/creator, communicator, ...........,
> man, father, friend, lover ................)
>
> museums - why not using these beautiful places of contemplation
> (concentration for/in arts) (as a platform)?
>
> best
>
> Reiner
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::
> cutted self.advertising part .....................
>
|