object vs. experience

weird. what's up, francis?
-judson

Reporting-MTA: dns; plasmastudii.org
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email protected]
Action: failed…

(for some reason, the rhizome server is sending, but not receiving from
this addresss? i couldn't post my last reply (agreed with mez), but essentially …)


one can describe concepts verbally, but …

in linear pieces, a description of the experience explains nothing
about the object, "i walked up to it. it made me feel warm inside."

in non-linear pieces, a description of the experience can describes it
all, "i walked up to it, and doing so, felt warmer."

in linear pieces, a description of the object can describe it all "it
was mostly red."

in non-linear pieces, a description of the object explains nothing "it
was a silver box".

video explains in terms of objects, not experience. some use it to
infer experience, but objectively, it is NOT possible. therefore,
video can not REALLY explain or represent an interactive piece. in
purely conceptual pieces, there's nothing about the object nor
experience essential to describe.


by "a piece", it really doesn't matter if you mean "art" or even
"idea". there is non-linear thinking, but is hard even for an
interactive programmer to see. (though probably because i was raised
thinking linearly) a non-linear idea is like understanding something
like how negative feedback in a thermostat controls temperature, linear
is thinking "if you're too cold, turn up the heat".


interactivity is one method for creating non-linearity. it is hardly
the only one. though many think interactivity and linearity are exact
opposites, or that interactive and non-linear are synonymous, they
simply aren't. those programs to replicate the growth of cells and
infections, is auto-generative, not interactive (usually) and still
non-linear.