look at the way TV looks at a monitor

As with money-related talk, you don't notice until it becomes a point of
interest how often images of computer monitors and what's on them pop up on
TV shows. I guess there's a whole Director biz making work that appears on
TV in this way.

It's interesting to look at the way TV looks at a monitor.

Don't know what sort of generalizations one could make about it. It's not
TV's impression of computer art, usually, but is art pretending to be data
visualization, often. Kind of tantalizing as a subject. One is often asked
to believe that one is not looking at art but at the interface of some
tool/app used by the people in the show. However, the interfaces are almost
always *not* recognizable as tools/apps commonly used and would never be
part of a workable app. Instead, there is usually some element of big visual
message indicating, often, the problem to be dealt with by the people in the
show.

The art is rarely on the monitor; the art is on the screen. Big emphasis on
computer as tool that provides crucial information.

inerestin.

ja

Comments

, yasir~

Pretty

I had similar thoughts re tv on the big screen, and how it functions in
various situations contexts - often like a live superhiway kind of
supermedium oracle, like a very supportive supermachine connecting
people's living rooms and bedrooms and 'locations on tv' , all over
society. The explanation was that it really is a huge machine, from the
studios to cable and satellite and all.

What you are saying goes a step further in two ways. One you are talking
about computers on tv rather than tv on film, and two, you are talking
about the content of the computer on tv, that it is not so meaningful.

My guess at the latter would be that it ceases to be a computer as a
computer and functions rather as pop perceptions of what the computer
does - hence your 'big visual message indicating, often, the problem to
be dealt with', a criminal database search, missile launch problem…

This while in reality the computer-and-internet, like the tv, has become
something hidden [on tv!], while being a more democratic [than tv]
organism supermedium oracle machine (oops I just remembered matrix),
with much bad advice and cheap astrology re quality.

So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that counts.
But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?

>y


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: look at the way TV looks at a monitor


As with money-related talk, you don't notice until it becomes a point of
interest how often images of computer monitors and what's on them pop up
on TV shows. I guess there's a whole Director biz making work that
appears on TV in this way.

It's interesting to look at the way TV looks at a monitor.

Don't know what sort of generalizations one could make about it. It's
not TV's impression of computer art, usually, but is art pretending to
be data visualization, often. Kind of tantalizing as a subject. One is
often asked to believe that one is not looking at art but at the
interface of some tool/app used by the people in the show. However, the
interfaces are almost always *not* recognizable as tools/apps commonly
used and would never be part of a workable app. Instead, there is
usually some element of big visual message indicating, often, the
problem to be dealt with by the people in the show.

The art is rarely on the monitor; the art is on the screen. Big emphasis
on computer as tool that provides crucial information.

inerestin.

ja


+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> 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

, Jim Andrews

> Pretty
>
> I had similar thoughts re tv on the big screen, and how it functions in
> various situations contexts - often like a live superhiway kind of
> supermedium oracle, like a very supportive supermachine connecting
> people's living rooms and bedrooms and 'locations on tv' , all over
> society.

Yes, 'they're screaming in Wisconsin' ("Network") and like. Was it
Wisconsin?

The explanation was that it really is a huge machine, from the
> studios to cable and satellite and all.
>
> What you are saying goes a step further in two ways. One you are talking
> about computers on tv rather than tv on film, and two, you are talking
> about the content of the computer on tv, that it is not so meaningful.
>
> My guess at the latter would be that it ceases to be a computer as a
> computer and functions rather as pop perceptions of what the computer
> does - hence your 'big visual message indicating, often, the problem to
> be dealt with', a criminal database search, missile launch problem…
>
> This while in reality the computer-and-internet, like the tv, has become
> something hidden [on tv!], while being a more democratic [than tv]
> organism supermedium oracle machine (oops I just remembered matrix),
> with much bad advice and cheap astrology re quality.
>
> So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that counts.

I guess you mean 'enveloping' in the sense of 'containing'.

So is the way TV looks at a monitor TV's attempt to contain the computer as
art medium?

Well, no, probably not.

Interesting to see the way that what is shown on the monitor on TV is a plot
point, and the concentration on narrative. Often what is shown on the
monitor is presented as a kind of 'objective' verification of the current
state of the narrative/plot: now we know x. On the rare occassions when we
see text on the TV in a foregrounded way (not the credits), it is a closeup
of a sentence or cut-off newspaper or part of a page of a book or whatever
that verifies and reveals. Some sort of playing with ontological status. The
computer monitor isn't represented as an art medium but as other things,
usually, though those representations are done in Director or Flash or
whatever, ie, done with digital art tools.

The folks who make the Director stuff that appears on monitors on TV seem to
be having fun playing with this interesting intermedia zone.

> But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?

Not sure what you mean?

ja

, yasir~

JA:

>Yes, 'they're screaming in Wisconsin' ("Network") and like. Was it
>Wisconsin?
Don't know the background here, but sounds like local v network issue.


>> So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that
>> counts.
>I guess you mean 'enveloping' in the sense of 'containing'.

Yes 'containing' (jargonitis, sneeze!).


>So is the way TV looks at a monitor TV's attempt to contain the
>computer as art medium? Well, no, probably not.
>Interesting to see the
>way that what is shown on the monitor on TV is a plot point, and the
>concentration on narrative. Often what is shown on the monitor is
>presented as a kind of 'objective' verification of the current state of

>the narrative/plot: now we know x. On the rare occassions when we see
>text on the TV in a foregrounded way (not the credits), it is a closeup

>of a sentence or cut-off newspaper or part of a page of a book or
>whatever that verifies and reveals. Some sort of playing with
>ontological status. The computer monitor isn't represented as an art
>medium but as other things, usually, though those representations are
>done in Director or Flash or whatever, ie, done with digital art tools.

>The folks who make the Director stuff that appears on monitors on TV
>seem to be having fun playing with this interesting intermedia zone.

Tv 'containing' the computer. I meant 'contain' descripively rather than
as an verb for the mediums. I also meant this after 'things' have
somewhat settled between the computer/internet and other mediums, which
has not happened yet, as in the case of film and tv. This is exactly why
your initial observation struck a chord, that the people doing stuff on
flash/director are getting to be like a clergy with a superior
ontological-epitemological claim, that is implied in the narratives. I
do hope this role eventually expands, for instance, if tv and its shows
become more interactive. Hence my concern for the potential and 'signs'
for art media.


>> But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
>Not sure what you mean?

I've touched on this in my reference to 'interactivity' in existing or
future media. I was asking about implications for constructed
environments/realities.

I am of course speculating based on thoughts lying somewhere at the back
of my head.

Best wishes

>y



+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> 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

, Jim Andrews

> Tv 'containing' the computer. I meant 'contain' descripively rather than
> as an verb for the mediums. I also meant this after 'things' have
> somewhat settled between the computer/internet and other mediums, which
> has not happened yet, as in the case of film and tv. This is exactly why
> your initial observation struck a chord, that the people doing stuff on
> flash/director are getting to be like a clergy with a superior
> ontological-epitemological claim, that is implied in the narratives.

Clergy? Implied in what? I don't get it.

TV grants the computer status as a scientific instrument. But the computer
and its monitor as interesting artistic medium, as far as TV is concerned,
is not really in the cards, yet; as you point out, maybe TV will end up on
the monitor or the two will otherwise meet in various ways. The TV screen
doesn't have the sort of resolution to handle much text that isn't fairly
big, however, for instance, at the moment. I checked out web TV once. Yikes.
Not real good.

There's a program in Canada called Zed (www.zed.cbc.ca) (how about
'aboot'?). They get submissions from people online and play some of them on
TV. But it seems mostly what they're after is video and music. More of the
same. They're not interested in digital art; they're interested in typical
TV material. Though there's a lot of interesting digital art made specially
for the Web that departs in strong ways from the look of typical TV, but you
don't see that on the show. The way TV looks at a TV screen is pretty
ingrained.

The people doing the Director/Flash/whatever stuff that you occassionally
see when TV characters look at a monitor during a show is usually not
represented as art, but as other things. Even to see it as art is to be in a
kind of secret dialog with the people who made the Director/Flash stuff, not
the TV producers. The Director/Flash folks are doing as much on the sly as
they can, sometimes, it seems. The shots are quick, momentary looks.

> I
> do hope this role eventually expands, for instance, if tv and its shows
> become more interactive. Hence my concern for the potential and 'signs'
> for art media.
>
> >> But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
> >Not sure what you mean?
>
> I've touched on this in my reference to 'interactivity' in existing or
> future media. I was asking about implications for constructed
> environments/realities.
>
> I am of course speculating based on thoughts lying somewhere at the back
> of my head.
>
> Best wishes
>
> >y

What are your thoughts on this?

ja