RE: Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival

i am participating in the boston cyberarts festival with my installation particle playground (video at http://www.jonathanzalben.com), and i was upset about the reaction in the nytimes article. i cannot speak directly to those pieces mentioned, but i think you can see from the video of my piece (which contains touch sensitive monkey bars) that young children really enjoyed the interaction. there was learning and coordination involved as well. i noticed that older participants regardless of whether they liked the piece, were more interested in content and function than interaction with media, which is ultimately an essential part of what this art is about. i think it is difficult to separate out content and interaction and arrive at a meaningful experience. i am not sure what the age divide is and whether it is dependent on technological awareness, but i thought it would be interesting to point out how age in this particular case is a significant factor in enjoyment of art.

Comments

, Matthew Mascotte

jonathan-

an interesting point you make. i curated
a solo exhibition for Daniel Shiffman at
the Savannah College of Art and
Design in February of 2004.

http://www.shiffman.net/scad/


I was amazed at how naturally it seemed for children
to engage Shiffman's interactive video pieces. I think most
adults feel embarrassed and uncomfortable interacting
with work in gallery settings…that uneasy feeling one
has when you're selected from an audience to go on stage
at a performace.

I like your piece at BostonCyberarts perhaps we're seeing
glimpses of future interactive art collectors in the making!!!!

respects,

Matthew






On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 04:59PM, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote:

>i am participating in the boston cyberarts festival with my installation particle playground (video at http://www.jonathanzalben.com), and i was upset about the reaction in the nytimes article. i cannot speak directly to those pieces mentioned, but i think you can see from the video of my piece (which contains touch sensitive monkey bars) that young children really enjoyed the interaction. there was learning and coordination involved as well. i noticed that older participants regardless of whether they liked the piece, were more interested in content and function than interaction with media, which is ultimately an essential part of what this art is about. i think it is difficult to separate out content and interaction and arrive at a meaningful experience. i am not sure what the age divide is and whether it is dependent on technological awareness, but i thought it would be interesting to point out how age in this particular case is a significant factor in enjoyment of a!
r!
> t.
>+
>-> 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
>
>

, Plasma Studii

>i am participating in the boston cyberarts festival with my
>installation particle playground (video at
>http://www.jonathanzalben.com), and i was upset about the reaction
>in the nytimes article. i cannot speak directly to those pieces
>mentioned, but i think you can see from the video of my piece (which
>contains touch sensitive monkey bars) that young children really
>enjoyed the interaction. there was learning and coordination
>involved as well. i noticed that older participants regardless of
>whether they liked the piece, were more interested in content and
>function than interaction with media, which is ultimately an
>essential part of what this art is about. i think it is difficult
>to separate out content and interaction and arrive at a meaningful
>experience. i am not sure what the age divide is and whether it is
>dependent on technological awareness, but i thought it would be
>interesting to point out how age in this particular case is a
>significant factor in enjoyment of ar!
> t.


your observation, albeit a pretty subjective one, seems right on.

but i'd hardly say the phenomenon describes interactivity vs.
content, as much as about kids have fun playing, particularly
learning from things that react to them differently than expected.
adults' curiosity/method of exploring often shifts from
tactile/visceral to more cerebral/observing. (i'd be curious how
older people react to interactive pieces? like 60-80 year olds.).

i suspect, with these larger installation/interactive works, what you
are seeing are kids focusing on the activity, what they do, watching
how the thing behaves (which does seem like the heart and soul of
interactivity). but the adult, who may like some abstract pieces
better or worse (not automatically love or hate all non-figurative
work), will judge the quality of the piece by how good (in their
esteem) the thing ends up looking. if they can then improve the way
it looks in some way by interacting.

they look at things like the color combos. the arbitrary blends that
include a very linear mix from a standard red to a standard purple
are just not gonna be visually stunning. if it's for adults, they
expect to register something sensually (or conceptually) compelling.

but more power to you. completely legitimate to make a toy (not
decoration), a work for kids to play with. but to put anything in
an art show is going to open it up to being scrutinized by adults.
adults who have really different expectations/criteria, don't have
the same impulsive curiosity, and particularly see the noun as
opposed to the verb. maybe you just like playing, are more of a kid.

matthew had a good point about people who resist interactivity when he cited

…that uneasy feeling one
has when you're selected from an audience to go on stage
at a performace.

, Rob Myers

On 29 Apr 2005, at 23:32, Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:

> but i'd hardly say the phenomenon describes interactivity vs. content,
> as much as about kids have fun playing, particularly learning from
> things that react to them differently than expected.

, Plasma Studii

>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
>the artist.

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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org