Re: Re: (x6) Request to Safari users

y Nick, you really stirred up a hornets nest over there. and i guess
i'm one of the hornets ;-)

what's a bit sobering about the entire thing is that I think that most
people (who are even aware of it) think of web art in this way. they
think that art is a painting that hangs in a gallery or a sculpture
that sits on a pedestal, any sort of creative use of the web or browser
technologies is just shunted off as trickery, scams, or gimmicks.

the general public hates art for whatever reason. usually it's because
they subscribe to the notion that art is a qualitative term.

for good or ill, our work is seen this way. the general public hates it.

<rant>
that's ok, maybe i'll climb up the ivory tower and stay there for good.
to hell with the populace as whole. they're ignorant, don't want to
learn and will insult your work for no reason. bunch of louts, bores,
philistines. fuck 'em.
</rant>

btw, i've reported the bug ;-)

On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Nick Barker wrote:

> All I really wanted was to get anyone who might prefer Safari to
> support animated background gifs to mention it to Apple
> but anyway - things are really hotting up over at
> http://discussions.info.apple.com/
> Discussions > Safari > Request to Safari users
>
> http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@@.5997ffdf/11
>
> Here is the latest
>
> Timothy Whidden RE(7): RE: Request to Safari users
> (msg # 2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1: Posted Jul 27, 03 8:39 am)
> Posts: 7
> quicksilver 867
> Mac OS X (10.2.x)
> 1. drop your ignorant definitions of web art. it's extremely insulting
> and makes you sound like an idiot.
>
> 2. i'm not being disengenious or misleading. there is nothing in HTML
> that would allow you to have [object] tags render in the background,
> but come to think of it, why not have java, quicktime movies, flash,
> or text as the background of the page? you could do some interesting
> things.
>
> 3. i support following standards. i repeat, if images are allowed to
> be in the background of an HTML doc by W3C standards then it's simply
> proper practice to support the format completely.
>
> 4. why is the background considered not part of the content of the
> page? lots of the newest CSS techniques use background images to place
> graphic headings on pages (see
> this:http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/css/replace-text/). so the
> distinction is clearly becoming murky as far as web designers are
> concerned.
>
> 5. Would you support not allowing background PNGs to have their
> alpha-transparency feature?
>
> 6. my answer to your real question: I *need* to display a graphic
> format that the browser claims to support. Don't get me wrong. Safari
> rocks the house, I use it everyday and I'm using it right now. I want
> it to be better and animated GIFs make it better for me.
>
> 7. Your directive to use different formats doesn't help the thousands
> of pages already built with this one effect in mind. Sure, web artists
> understand that their work may be ephemeral, that it can degrade or
> become lost as technology changes, but in this instance it would be so
> easy for Apple to fix this one little thing and let some web art live
> for a bit longer in the Safari browser.
>
> Sylvan RE(8): RE: Request to Safari users
> (msg # 2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1: Posted Jul 27, 03 9:45 am)
>
>
>

Comments

, Jack Stenner

On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 01:20 PM, t.whid wrote:

>
> y Nick, you really stirred up a hornets nest over there. and i guess
> i'm one of the hornets ;-)

Fellow hornet here. I hate getting involved in these sort of
"discussions" but couldn't resist :-) The other person obviously has a
huge axe to grind with art.

>
> what's a bit sobering about the entire thing is that I think that most
> people (who are even aware of it) think of web art in this way. they
> think that art is a painting that hangs in a gallery or a sculpture
> that sits on a pedestal, any sort of creative use of the web or
> browser technologies is just shunted off as trickery, scams, or
> gimmicks.

I think there are many types of web art viewers, each with different
tendencies in how they respond:

1.) Those who know little about art (web based or otherwise). Because
the medium is new, the typical response is to get caught up trying to
figure out "how'd they do that?" They have no framework with which to
evaluate an artwork other than as craft, so they feel threatened and
tend to be antagonistic. The worst of these are web
designers/programmers who are determined to show they know more than a
"silly artist." (this seems to be Sylvan :-)

2.) Those who know about art but haven't considered the implications
of the web/digital, etc. Because the medium is new, the typical
response is to get caught up trying to figure out "how'd they do that?"
Often, these viewers feel threatened by a new medium and work hard to
find ways to dismiss the content. Many will eventually "see the light"
:-)

3.) Those who follow web based art. Often, because the medium is new,
the initial response is to get caught up trying to figure out "how'd
they do that?" Many of these are eventually able to get past the first
phase and evaluate a work for what it is :-)

…and numerous others

>
> the general public hates art for whatever reason. usually it's because
> they subscribe to the notion that art is a qualitative term.

True. I also find that the general public is very comfortable with
binary situations where there is a right and wrong. They want answers,
and art doesn't typically satisfy this desire.

Maybe it's a symptom of geography (I'm in Texas), but there is a
distinct suspicion of art and artist, here. David Gelernter, in
"Machine Beauty" mentions that art in Western culture (conflated with
beauty) is often seen as a typically "female" behavior, and is
subsequently placed in a submissive role to issues of practicality and
utility. In extreme cases art subconsciously arouses homophobic
behavior in certain individuals (often male technologists). He
theorized that this might explain the anti-gui stance of many opponents
of the early Mac. I think when you combine art with a male dominated
technology culture it's a recipe for the kind of anti-art behavior web
artists experience.

>
> for good or ill, our work is seen this way. the general public hates
> it.
>
> <rant>
> that's ok, maybe i'll climb up the ivory tower and stay there for
> good. to hell with the populace as whole. they're ignorant, don't want
> to learn and will insult your work for no reason. bunch of louts,
> bores, philistines. fuck 'em.
> </rant>

It will be interesting in 20-30 years, when the "new" of technology has
worn off, how art knowledgeable people will respond to the work of the
day vs. the work of today. Short of a major cultural shift, I don't
see the general populace ever embracing web based art any more than
they embrace other forms of art.

What never ceases to amaze me, is how willing people are to subscribe
to some fundamentalist viewpoint that imposes its values on all others
(ie, this guy's desire to keep people from viewing animated gifs). It
seems to be rampant these days….

>
> btw, i've reported the bug ;-)

same here….it's a bug!

, nick barker

I sure did - and it is still buzzing
As I said, it was not my intention but as soon as I read Sylvan's first post I thought that it was probably going to heat up a bit.

I always forget how upset people can get about "art" - I don't know why I forget because I hear it often enough.

Anyway - glad you both reported the "bug" .

I know one cannot expect technology to stand still but I just do not feel quite ready for "Please view this site with any other browser than Safari"



t.whid wrote:

>
> y Nick, you really stirred up a hornets nest over there. and i guess
> i'm one of the hornets ;-)

, Jim Andrews

"the general public hates art for whatever reason. usually it's because
they subscribe to the notion that art is a qualitative term."

What does it mean to say that "art is a qualitative term", t.whid?

ja