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 .....................
|