>
i have unfortunately done very little net art collaborating (as a poet i've collaborated more)…
for me the whole concept of net art is about collaboration with the user…the net is a communicative network…therefore, one should COMMUNE with the user of one's piece…i do this through interactivity (as does anyone else doing this)
===this is why i often get short with works that are passive, or offer the user very little in terms of collaboration===such works are often beautiful, but i always go away from them wondering why they're on the net as opposed to in a gallery or on a film screen…but i'm a bit of a "purist" that way====
bliss
l
Re: more questions
-
Type: discussion
Comments
on 10/9/02 5:55 PM, Lewis LaCook at [email protected] wrote:
> i often get short with works that are passive, or offer the user very little
> in terms of collaboration===such works are often beautiful, but i always go
> away from them wondering why they're on the net as opposed to in a gallery or
> on a film screen…but i'm a bit of a "purist" that way====
But with all due respect, senor LLaCook, how do you bring such a point of
view into sync with your posting of 1-2 highly "passive" (by your standards,
not mine) poems per day to this list and others? Not that I don't think them
beautiful (by both our standards, I suspect). . .
-m