>Don't underrate play. :-) It's how we learn socially.
sorry if you thought i was. just the opposite.
in fact, see toys probably having more of a legit function then art.
but since the function of art is so astoundingly unclear, it's hardly
a worthwhile issue at all. meanwhile, interactive pieces can easily
have several essential qualities, usefulness, as art, and as a toy.
it's just often programmers aren't thinking of all those things, and
really just how the actual gizmos themselves work. fine, but not
everybody's interested in the gizmos.
>One problem with interactive art, and with hypertext, is the demands
>it makes on the viewer. Giving the viewer "free rein" but with a
>corresponding demand that they "do the right thing" risks the
>artwork disappointing the audience, or the audience disappointing
agree. it's always a helpful notion to make the very first and
constant thought of interactivity is "what do they get for their
effort" then. avoid programming so any effort could be construed as
"the wrong thing", just whatever input, gets variant output. that's
just basic interface work.
the real world just behaves how it does, no wrong/right, it's just
harder to account for. we can fall short in accounting for it, but
the world isn't always going to cover for our short comings. we
can't realistically expect that.
> This is part of the moral territory of interactivity, and is a
>feature, not a bug. :-)
sorry, rob, but this conclusion seems like it came from outer space.
have no idea how you got there.
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
New York, USA
(on-line press kit)http://plasmastudii.org