SL, Tools and Art

> something like Word, there's no one claiming it's a work of art. it's a
> tool. why? because it doesn't do too much toward shaping the user's
> creation toward its own unique ends, and it supplies hardly any of the
> content.
>
> …
>
> is there any work of art in sl more impressive than sl itself? sl as a
> piece of net art?
>
> ************************************************************************
> ****
>
> IMO, that's like saying asking what the difference between Word Perfect
> and Finnegan's Wake is. That's the difference between a pencil and a
> love letter. Cadmium Red canvas and brush, and Fragonard's Swing, a
> clarinet and Rhapsody in Blue.
>
> I took the bait, knowing this was a rhetorical question.

The difference between old tools/instruments and art is quite a bit wider
than it is in many net art works, of course.

Net art has changed in many ways over the last few years. One of the ways is
that the art of the net app is now 'entertained' at the corporate level;
apps such as SL not only create a tool for others to create virtual worlds
in which people communicate, but the corporation creates much of the art
itself of that world–and many of the communications to the inhabitants also
are from the corporation.

The idea of SL as a net art work is of course also related to Mark Tribe's
claim of Rhizome as social sculpture. It will be resented by those within
the world but, seen from the outside…

Concerning art, I suppose one of the questions is 'Who profits from it?'
The corporation, mainly, or the artists? Also, which shines brightest? The
artists' art, or the 'social sculpture'?

Also, can the virtual world actually support art created at or above the
level of the virtual world itself (or the 'social sculpture') created by the
corporation?

The answers to these questions are rather complex, it seems to me.

ja?
http://vispo.com

From my perspective, I think there are two things going on.
As far as Rhizome as social sculpture is concerned, it seems like the
question is still similar to whether HTML, Dreamweaver, APACHE & the Net
are art as opposed to Rikrit Tiravajia turning the gallery into a social
sculpture.

To me, the idea od networked social sculpture seems more relevant to its
tools as a framing device; technical, social, cultural. As Laurie
Anderson said, a frame for the picture; the mediator for the art. The
problem that I think we're getting at is that it, as with so many things
after Duchamp and then Conceptualism, FLUXUS, and others is rendered
intangible.

I think this is a big point that SL - based art asks.

Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813

FAX 312 344-8021
[email protected]

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: SL, Tools and Art


> something like Word, there's no one claiming it's a work of art. it's
a
> tool. why? because it doesn't do too much toward shaping the user's
> creation toward its own unique ends, and it supplies hardly any of the
> content.
>
> …
>
> is there any work of art in sl more impressive than sl itself? sl as a
> piece of net art?
>
>
************************************************************************
> ****
>
> IMO, that's like saying asking what the difference between Word
Perfect
> and Finnegan's Wake is. That's the difference between a pencil and a
> love letter. Cadmium Red canvas and brush, and Fragonard's Swing, a
> clarinet and Rhapsody in Blue.
>
> I took the bait, knowing this was a rhetorical question.

The difference between old tools/instruments and art is quite a bit
wider
than it is in many net art works, of course.

Net art has changed in many ways over the last few years. One of the
ways is
that the art of the net app is now 'entertained' at the corporate level;
apps such as SL not only create a tool for others to create virtual
worlds
in which people communicate, but the corporation creates much of the art
itself of that world–and many of the communications to the inhabitants
also
are from the corporation.

The idea of SL as a net art work is of course also related to Mark
Tribe's
claim of Rhizome as social sculpture. It will be resented by those
within
the world but, seen from the outside…

Concerning art, I suppose one of the questions is 'Who profits from it?'
The corporation, mainly, or the artists? Also, which shines brightest?
The
artists' art, or the 'social sculpture'?

Also, can the virtual world actually support art created at or above the
level of the virtual world itself (or the 'social sculpture') created by
the
corporation?

The answers to these questions are rather complex, it seems to me.

ja?
http://vispo.com


+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

patrick lichty wrote:

> problem that I think we're getting at is that it, as with so many things
> after Duchamp and then Conceptualism, FLUXUS, and others is rendered
> intangible.

if it's intangible, then how can it affect my (tangible) body's
(neurochemical-based, ie physical, ie tangible) emotional system? if a
sculpture is falling toward me in real life, i panic and try and run away.
if a sculpture is falling toward me in SL, i don't care, because i know it
can't affect me physically. if the ceiling is very low in real life i feel
physically cramped due to the physical senses (vision, also sound, perhaps
touch - different air flows?). if the ceiling is very low in sl then it
just /looks/ low, in a kind of low-poly ugly way, and without the extra
physical cues - so again, i don't care.

i'm not against the intangible - on the contrary, i'm primarily a musician,
and music is all about the intangible - i find sl requires too much
conceptual energy to be physically (and thereby emotionally) engaging - it
doesn't engage my monkey brain enough: too much thinking being, not enough
monkey.

i think this is a deeper problem than just that
the-technology-isn't-there-yet - will the technology *ever* be there? would
we want that? really? so why should i spend extra (conceptual) effort
making up for the shortcomings simply because the technology isn't there yet?

–
damian stewart | +44 7854 493 796 | [email protected]
frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz