Boxer

FYI-

Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival
is at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html

Comments

, Plasma Studii

> Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival
> is at:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html


it's sad because she's totally right. stuff that the creators
probably thought was so cool or didn't matter, was all the same stuff
she thought was annoying or fundamentally a sign the thing even
works. sad because she's now been taught that when she detects a
work is particularly techno, she'll hate it, before she even tries
it. conditioned to think all interactivity is intrinsically bad
because most of the examples she's seen are. sad because it's hardly
unusual.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/99/99fnickburns.phtml
(not particularly funny, but a good portrait from both sides)

artists and audiences can argue if something is a feature or a bug,
but whoever wins, the artist gains nothing and the audience goes
away, slightly disappointed. if we want things like collectors and
price tags, the first step isn't re-conceptualizing a market. the
first step is making stuff somebody else might be interested in.
it's just using some much needed social skills.

we have plenty we CAN still change. if we made anything they were
into, all these excuses for the work not being buy-able would just be
ignored, forgotten.


one way, is to put in more effort on these productions to HIDE the
computer-ness/quirks we love. a real skill that takes up probably
90% of the work. (tailors do the same thing, making their work,
interesting to themselves, invisible to the world) even if we're
talking about computers (like a book about books, if you're not into
books, you won't read it. but you may even enjoy a painting of a
book). boxer's stuck at a party full of geeks shouting at her about
things like transporter beam anomalies. the subjects would even be
tolerable, maybe even fascinating, if they made more pleasant
conversation and actually paid the slightest attention to the other
person.

computers demanding idealized input from the real world, may be an
unimportant side effect to working with these cool toys to some. but
to others the toys are kinda boring, particularly if they only seem
to be talking about and only work in a few rigidly selected cases.

, Steve Kudlak

I dunno this is another one of those critcs that should happily go live in
Singapore or some place where throwing chewing gum opn the sidewalk gets
you shot at dawn.

My big question is why some artists and some people seem to tamke a
particular joy in making us uncomfortable. There has got to be a reason or
is that "washout from the 20th Century wherein mindless despair was oh so
in and popular" often preached by those who would go on to do quite well.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve



> Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>
>> FYI-
>>
>> Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival
>> is at:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html
>
>
> there is very little that makes me want to be an artist less than this
> article.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Jason Van Anden

I have heard this criticism of new media art before, from people who understand contemporary art history and are in positions to offer their financial and organizational support. Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate description of what the public-at-large experiences.

I suppose that taking or leaving this kind of feedback depends on what you imagine your role as an artist to be - communicator, entertainer, teacher, trail blazer, media mogul, etc…

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

, Pall Thayer

Well it looks to me like Sarah Boxer has managed to carve herself a nice
little niche in the art critic world. Yep, right between Louis Leroy and
Albert Wolff.

Pall

Jason Van Anden wrote:
> I have heard this criticism of new media art before, from people who understand contemporary art history and are in positions to offer their financial and organizational support. Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate description of what the public-at-large experiences.
>
> I suppose that taking or leaving this kind of feedback depends on what you imagine your role as an artist to be - communicator, entertainer, teacher, trail blazer, media mogul, etc…
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

, Jason Van Anden

Good Grief Pall!

Looks like you took my use of the word "criticism" to mean "Art" criticism. Clearly the article is written as an "interactive art for idiots" piece. Even so, I do think this is a good record of how the world outside percieves new media art.

Take it or leave it.
Jason


Pall Thayer wrote:

> Well it looks to me like Sarah Boxer has managed to carve herself a
> nice
> little niche in the art critic world. Yep, right between Louis Leroy
> and
> Albert Wolff.
>
> Pall
>
> Jason Van Anden wrote:
> > I have heard this criticism of new media art before, from people who
> understand contemporary art history and are in positions to offer
> their financial and organizational support. Like it or not, this is a
> pretty accurate description of what the public-at-large experiences.
> >
> > I suppose that taking or leaving this kind of feedback depends on
> what you imagine your role as an artist to be - communicator,
> entertainer, teacher, trail blazer, media mogul, etc…
> >
> > Jason Van Anden
> > www.smileproject.com
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> –
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________

, Pall Thayer

Hi Jason,
I took your use of the word criticism to mean criticism. But when I see
an article of Sarah Boxers on the NYT web site, under the heading
"NYTimes.com > Arts > Art & Design" and under the title "Critic's
Notebook" it makes me think "Art Critic" and sounds like a pretty
reasonable assumption to me. So is it such a persons job to describe
what the public at large experiences?

Pall

Jason Van Anden wrote:
> Good Grief Pall!
>
> Looks like you took my use of the word "criticism" to mean "Art" criticism. Clearly the article is written as an "interactive art for idiots" piece. Even so, I do think this is a good record of how the world outside percieves new media art.
>
> Take it or leave it.
> Jason
>
>
> Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>
>>Well it looks to me like Sarah Boxer has managed to carve herself a
>>nice
>>little niche in the art critic world. Yep, right between Louis Leroy
>>and
>> Albert Wolff.
>>
>>Pall
>>
>>Jason Van Anden wrote:
>>
>>>I have heard this criticism of new media art before, from people who
>>
>>understand contemporary art history and are in positions to offer
>>their financial and organizational support. Like it or not, this is a
>>pretty accurate description of what the public-at-large experiences.
>>
>>>I suppose that taking or leaving this kind of feedback depends on
>>
>>what you imagine your role as an artist to be - communicator,
>>entertainer, teacher, trail blazer, media mogul, etc…
>>
>>>Jason Van Anden
>>>www.smileproject.com
>>>+
>>>-> post: [email protected]
>>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>
>>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>
>>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>>+
>>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>Membership Agreement available online at
>>
>>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>–
>>_______________________________
>>Pall Thayer
>>artist/teacher
>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>>
>>Lorna
>>http://www.this.is/lorna
>>_______________________________
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

, Jason Van Anden

Hi Pall,

Wow - I completely missed that! My fault for blindly clicking on the colorful images online Times dished out to me on their front page. Didn't bother to check the section - and did not consider for a moment while reading it that the context was Art criticism.

Pall > So is it such a persons job to describe
Pall > what the public at large experiences?

My knee-jerk reaction to this is "duh! of course not" - but then again … it makes me wonder who the critic is supposed to serve. Is the critic charged with teaching an otherwise ignorant public how to appreciate Art or are they to report what the public might find interesting on their terms and why?

If its the latter then I think this article does a pretty good job.

Jason


Pall Thayer wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> I took your use of the word criticism to mean criticism. But when I
> see
> an article of Sarah Boxers on the NYT web site, under the heading
> "NYTimes.com > Arts > Art & Design" and under the title "Critic's
> Notebook" it makes me think "Art Critic" and sounds like a pretty
> reasonable assumption to me. So is it such a persons job to describe
> what the public at large experiences?
>
> Pall

, Plasma Studii

I have heard this criticism of new media art before, from people who
understand contemporary art history and are in positions to offer
their financial and organizational support. Like it or not, this is
a pretty accurate description of what the public-at-large experiences.

I suppose that taking or leaving this kind of feedback depends on
what you imagine your role as an artist to be - communicator,
entertainer, teacher, trail blazer, media mogul, etc…

>Hi Jason,
>I took your use of the word criticism to mean criticism. But when I
>see an article of Sarah Boxers on the NYT web site, under the
>heading "NYTimes.com > Arts > Art & Design" and under the title
>"Critic's Notebook" it makes me think "Art Critic" and sounds like a
>pretty reasonable assumption to me. So is it such a persons job to
>describe what the public at large experiences?


not that you are wrong about your dissatisfaction with the article,
but there are so many ways to critique. art history has absolutely
nothing to do with this article. read it. it may be a way to
describe the work that you'd be interested in, but is not the aspect
she's talking about at all.

… in this case, her emotions said a lot more to her than history
(and that is often how people are outside of the computer art theory
world). if we play by the same rules, stick to the same ruler,
adopt a broader set of criteria, then a person COULD argue with a
critique. (but so happens in this case, a lot of us think, taken
experiential feelings (not art theorism), she has valid points.)
meaningless to judge the article by criteria she was not talking
about.

sure, if you look at contemporary art in the last 100 years,
interactive stuff offers a lot relevant additions to an ongoing
discussion. but it's also true, a lot of us artist/programmers, many
may even excel in that area, are way out of touch in others. you'd
be right to argue the work is still effective. but it's often only
effective in one very particular way. she's saying it isn't
effective in some other pretty common ways.

, Jim Andrews

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Boxer> Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate
description of what the public-at-large experiences.

I didn't really get a sense from the article whether the problems she
mentioned were her problems or problems of the work. The interactivity in
digital art is often poorly conceived and creates pointless interactivity.
But, by the same token, many people do not have the computer literacy to
interact appropriately with well-programmed, well-designed, well-conceived
interfaces. It wasn't clear to me which was the case, or whether it was some
mixture.

Of course, the challenge, both to artists and the audience, of such
communication also poses the possibility of fresh art. And there is lots of
common ground in understanding how computer interfaces typically work. And
other interfaces. And what they do…

ja
http://vispo.com

, Pall Thayer

I got the feeling that the article was a personal assessment of what she
dislikes about interactive art and that it had very little to do with
the work being shown. The opening line "Interactive art is irritating."
says to me that she already held this opinion before she went to the show.

Pall

Jim Andrews wrote:
> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Boxer> Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate
> description of what the public-at-large experiences.
>
> I didn't really get a sense from the article whether the problems she
> mentioned were her problems or problems of the work. The interactivity in
> digital art is often poorly conceived and creates pointless interactivity.
> But, by the same token, many people do not have the computer literacy to
> interact appropriately with well-programmed, well-designed, well-conceived
> interfaces. It wasn't clear to me which was the case, or whether it was some
> mixture.
>
> Of course, the challenge, both to artists and the audience, of such
> communication also poses the possibility of fresh art. And there is lots of
> common ground in understanding how computer interfaces typically work. And
> other interfaces. And what they do…
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>


_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

, Lewis LaCook

http://rhizome.org/info/10.php

























Jim Andrews wrote:

> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Boxer> Like it or not, this is a pretty accurate
> description of what the public-at-large experiences.
>
> I didn't really get a sense from the article whether the problems she
> mentioned were her problems or problems of the work. The interactivity
> in
> digital art is often poorly conceived and creates pointless
> interactivity.
> But, by the same token, many people do not have the computer literacy
> to
> interact appropriately with well-programmed, well-designed,
> well-conceived
> interfaces. It wasn't clear to me which was the case, or whether it
> was some
> mixture.
>
> Of course, the challeng

e, both to artists and the audience, of such
> communication also poses the possibility of fresh art. And there is
> lots of
> common ground in understanding how computer interfaces typically work.
> And
> other interfaces. And what they do…
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com

, Jim Andrews

> I got the feeling that the article was a personal assessment of what she
> dislikes about interactive art and that it had very little to do with
> the work being shown. The opening line "Interactive art is irritating."
> says to me that she already held this opinion before she went to the show.
>
> Pall

Could be.

She says, of one piece (
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html?pagewanted=2 ),
"No one wants to be the first to paw the idol. And once you do, it's not
clear what effect you are having." That's in a situation where a group is
viewing an interactive piece meant for one person interaction. Best to think
about the audience's point of view and the interactor's point of view in
that situation. If you want volunteers, they need to know how to use the
piece or there will be few brave souls.

Her "problem 1", ie, the "dirty secrets", well, that seemed more like her
problem. Kind of a prudish reaction. Not enough info to know whether the
actual art was interesting. Presumably it said more than "I like to
masturbate in public" and "I have memories of places I've never been to."
Sounds like it put her off exploring more.

She says "problem No. 3: [is] ungraciousness. Machines make no bones about
their own flaws, but are unbending about yours." Ungraciousness. Hmm. The
example she gives is the rock paper scissors piece. Sounds like kind of bad
design on that one. It cheats and you have to align your hand exactly right.
I don't think that's so much 'ungraciousness' as bad design where the
interaction hasn't been thought through fully.

And her "problem No. 4: moral superiority." People put the effort in to
interact and are then punished for it, in her example. The mechanism works
but the art is dysfunctional.

I think she's got a legitimate beef in that a lot of the interactive art
I've experienced is lame. But, then, so is a lot of the rest of art.
Interactive art isn't inherantly more interesting than regular art. It takes
as much doing as reg art. Also, people will say of reg art 'it works' or 'it
doesn't work' and they're being vague and pseudo critical. but with
interactive art, at least at the level of the mechanisms, they can make the
same sort of comment and mean it literally. if the mechanisms aren't working
well, then it's going to be difficult or impossible to experience the art
well. and the mechanisms are usually kind of flaky. then there's the
experience of the art (though they're not so separable). And that's got to
be artistically happnin.

I just think it's hard to make good art, reg or interactive. For every piece
we experience that blows our mind, we see 20 others that are whatever. It
seems worthwhile, though, for the experience of the odd mind blower, and
many of the others have much to recommend them.

All art, mind blowing or not, is doomed to failure in a culture such as this
one, in a sense. On the other hand, there is a sense in which only art is
worthwhile in this sort of culture. Interactive or not.

Boxer should be allowed to be prickly.

ja
http://vispo.com

, Plasma Studii

>> I got the feeling that the article was a personal assessment of what she
>> dislikes about interactive art and that it had very little to do with
>> the work being shown. The opening line "Interactive art is irritating."
>> says to me that she already held this opinion before she went to the show.
>>
>> Pall
>
>Could be
.
yeah, sounds likely. though hardly unusual. as designers we have to
take that into account as an obstacle to iron out those people are
gonna be have the harshest reaction to flaws in design.

>
>She says, of one piece (
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html?pagewanted=2 )

>Her "problem 1", ie, the "dirty secrets", well, that seemed more like her
>problem. Kind of a prudish reaction. Not enough info to know whether the
>actual art was interesting. Presumably it said more than "I like to
>masturbate in public" and "I have memories of places I've never been to."
>Sounds like it put her off exploring more.

got the impression she wasn't so much offended but annoyed at the
artist trying to be offensive. childish. (hence "potty mouthed
machines" and not "offensive machines")

the following are good points by jim….


>
>She says "problem No. 3: [is] ungraciousness. Machines make no bones about
>their own flaws, but are unbending about yours." Ungraciousness. Hmm. The
>example she gives is the rock paper scissors piece. Sounds like kind of bad
>design on that one. It cheats and you have to align your hand exactly right.
>I don't think that's so much 'ungraciousness' as bad design where the
>interaction hasn't been thought through fully.
>
>And her "problem No. 4: moral superiority." People put the effort in to
>interact and are then punished for it, in her example. The mechanism works
>but the art is dysfunctional.
>
>I think she's got a legitimate beef in that a lot of the interactive art
>I've experienced is lame. But, then, so is a lot of the rest of art.
>Interactive art isn't inherantly more interesting than regular art. It takes
>as much doing as reg art. Also, people will say of reg art 'it works' or 'it
>doesn't work' and they're being vague and pseudo critical. but with
>interactive art, at least at the level of the mechanisms, they can make the
>same sort of comment and mean it literally. if the mechanisms aren't working
>well, then it's going to be difficult or impossible to experience the art
>well. and the mechanisms are usually kind of flaky. then there's the
>experience of the art (though they're not so separable). And that's got to
>be artistically happnin.
>
>I just think it's hard to make good art, reg or interactive. For every piece
>we experience that blows our mind, we see 20 others that are whatever. It
>seems worthwhile, though, for the experience of the odd mind blower, and
>many of the others have much to recommend them.

interactive stuff is just particularly harder to make because …
if it's a painting, it won't come up that the painting has some
technical flaw that prevents it from being seen.


>
>All art, mind blowing or not, is doomed to failure in a culture such as this
>one, in a sense. On the other hand, there is a sense in which only art is
>worthwhile in this sort of culture. Interactive or not.
>
>Boxer should be allowed to be prickly.

particularly, since in being picky about these things, she's well
into the vast majority of the audience.
>
>ja
>http://vispo.com
>
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

, curt cloninger

Jim Andrews wrote:

All art… is doomed to failure in a culture such as this
one, in a sense. On the other hand, there is a sense in which only art is
worthwhile in this sort of culture.

////

well ovserved and duly noted:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lab404/