Matt Locke wrote:
>this assumes that most visitors will have, say, an SMS-enabled mobile phone
>(a pretty easy assumption to make in the UK),
I don't think that it is an easy assumption to make, although having made
it, this would indicate that 'the gallery', as an architecture, no longer
takes sole responsibility for the public *literally* accessing the work.
This is interesting.
>This means that the factors we tend to find most problematic about gallery
>spaces in relation to new media - namely their historical presentation
>rhetorics embodied in their architectures - become interesting contexts for
>'site-specific' location based mobile projects.
by substituting one form of social definition with another?
i.e. techno-mobility rather than art -historical/establishment context?
All technology requires skill on the part of the user. Currently, its seems
to be easier for more people to use mobile phones than computers.
By sharing responsibility with the participant for accessing techno work
the gallery/museum is losing some, if not alot, of its control over
distribution. (In fact a big part of that control now lies with the new
Which is why, Patrick Lichty says "I don't feel that there is a mandate for
a physical show except for the fact that the audience seems to expect one"
>i find mobile work more interesting at the moment for precisely this reason
>- web-based work by comparison seems too rooted in a specific context (the
>desk or home terminal) to be able to dal with these architectural rhetorics
>without substantial changes in presentation modes.
Maybe the architecture of the gallery is not such a problem here as much as
the technical participation structures within networked art itself? How can
the gallery/museum 'control' participation when it also becomes a matter
of the audience's technical skill and personal technological investment?