Hi, Gunnar,
Thanks for your reply. It's quite true that art has no
"ordinary users." That gives rise to the possibility of
some interesting thought experiments.
Ubu Web has an interesting an seminal book available
in PDF that explored some of the issues in what it might
be if art were to have "ordinary users." This was An
Anthology from the early 1960s,
http://www.ubu.com/historical/young/
Today, of course, these thought experiments might take
a very different shape, but for the era, there is some
interesting material.
Your comment on simulation has me sitting here laughing.
This is often -- and sadly -- true.
Warm wishes,
Ken
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:14:27 -0400, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Ken,
>
>I agree with you generally about user testing but there are no
>"ordinary users" of Art. Art is a conversation and only the people who
>are part of the conversation matter. There are no other real
>"users." (If people who are not part of the conversation get something
>out of overhearing, that's great but almost beside the point.)
>
> Where my analogy really falls apart is in the fact that most Art
>faculty are not part of the conversation; they just simulate a role in
>the Art dialogue.
>
>Gunnar
|