hi josephine, list
>second the work has an interactivity
>level that is 'intimate' or highly involving for >a small group of people
>only, creating an unpredictable outcome.
I agree with you that this is interactivity in it's purest form.
But if so: what is there to secure? the idea, the work, the outcome?
Who is the author? and therefor the Owner?
Is an interactive piece really a 'work' without the users.
According to me the user plays an important part in creating the piece
(maybe even co-creators).
so who in the end has control over the work? Who has the rights?
When you talk about security are you referring to the 'physical' aspect of
an object or things like copyright etc......
(hereby i apologize for my bad english no native speaker)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josephine Bosma" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Too Interactive: Nov theme of the month
> hello Mathew,
> > 1. emulation (development of an interface that can recreate the
> > environment of conception); 2. migration (moving the work along the
> > way celebrating and suffering through its mutations); 3. recreation
> > based on the artists intention. I would also propose a distributed
> > model to this as well where mulitple copies of the work would be
> > stored on separate databases that either are or are not in the musea
> > location.
> Aren't these strategies for preserving work rather then strategies
> towards security around an interactive art work? I can imagine that in
> order to keep a work or parts of a work from being stolen or damaged
> musea would choose to have only a documentation of work available, next
> to the work itself (think of Systems Maintenance by Perry Hoberman,
> which should be in the (f.ex.) Guggenheims permanent collection in my
> point of view) behind glass. It is also imaginable that (to follow your
> lead) musea would create 'replica's' of a work (next to preserving the
> work in the most ideal manner thinkable) to offer the audience an
> impression of the interactive experience that is in this work.
> > It would be also interesting to consider interactive
> > installations that incorporate not only screen based technologies but
> > the building and development of electronic circuits, that fizzle,
> > sizzle, crackle, and pop to the users pleasure or discomfort.
> I don't think it all needs to be electronic to be interactive. :)
> The term 'interactivity' is so unclear and questionable of course.
> Having a discussion about something being 'too interactive' is
> interesting though. I am not a curator but 'too interactive' seems to
> mean two things to me: first the work is in danger of being changed,
> stolen or damaged by the audience; second the work has an interactivity
> level that is 'intimate' or highly involving for a small group of people
> only, creating an unpredictable outcome. In case of the latter I think
> we can speak of interactivity in the purest sense of the word. The
> interactivity Hoberman mockingly spoke of in the quote Cyper sent has
> been called a very funny and appropriate name by Austrian artist
> Margarete Jahrmann : interpassive.