Re: box car willie + cool experiment

a cool experiment

watch this only once. count the number of times the people in white
shirts pass the ball.
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

then continue reading this …

—

ok, you did that? now watch it again and do you notice anything else now?

this may be related to this issue. some see it is glaringly obvious,
while some don't.see it at all.

—


>>right now there's no such thing for many as GREAT computer art,
>>just like it'd never occur to them they could be looking at an
>>example of GREAT shoe tying. we're not fighting [for] a 0 rating,
>>it's a null, rating still doesn't apply.


>I think some of the people participating in this thread are missing
>the point entirely. Sarah never says that "most of the artbase 101
>show was mediocre" and if she had, that would at least be a step in
>the right direction. But then, of course, she would have to back it
>up with something. The point is that all she really says is that she
>went and spent some time at a show at the New Museum of Contemporary
>Art. When we see something under the header "Art Review", we want
>some meat. We want a professional assesment of the work. What stands
>out and why? What doesn't and why not? Perhaps also a couple of
>hints that show that the person really understands the work. All she
>gives is hints that show that she doesn't understand which in my
>book means that she shouldn't be doing the review. Would you trust a
>rock critic to give a decent review of an opera?


sorry. i said it all earlier and now am too lazy to re-word.

but i will address one (semi-tangental) point. doubt you meant opera
is superior to rock, but this does have an elitist smell to it.
every genre is better for some things, worse for others. maybe a
rock critic isn't familiar with why schoenberg is so dissonant, but
there's a lot more to a piece than where the artist is coming from.
if you ask me, once the work has been put out there, the artist
becomes completely irrelevant, it's between the audience and the
piece now. the intended context is just not the context for
everybody.


>
>Then there's that other thing. Some people seem to think that the
>artists mission is to make art for the public. I'm sorry, but they
>forgot to put me on the payroll. People that really want to
>experience my art have to come to my level, I'm not going to theirs.
>If someone finds a piece of mine intriguing, they can look at my
>other work to put it into context and if they're really interested,
>they can even find a couple of interviews on the net and if that
>doesn't do it, my email address is all over. If I were interested in
>catering to the publics expectations and wants, I would've gone into
>graphic design or maybe I would paint pretty images on silk pillows
>and hit the craft-fair circuit. But I'm not and I think the majority
>of us would say the same.

nobody's telling you to make work your not interested in. but
shutting out everyone but like-minded friends, is an obstacle that
will gradually prevent us from having that option. there's now almost
no demand for hand illustrators (at least in the US), whereas not
long ago you could easily make a career of it. to avoid altering
their imaginations' goals to their real-life environment, many who've
invested years can end up painting silk pillows for a living. it
behooves us to keep the demand for what we love afloat. and try not
to sabotage it, particularly when folks offer us tips.