art as marketing as art

>> there was a time when java came on the scene and it was all the
>>hype like flash. as was java always employed more advanced
>>programming ideas than lingo,

> such as? java is object-oriented. director is 'object-centered'
>like visual basic. java is fully code-centered. director has the
>timeline which can be subverted to make the work code-centered.

both are just tools for making web art. in fact, both use coding,
can facilitate animation and interactivity. there's no need to go
further into the details than that. (particularly comparing java 1.0
to director 4)



> but it seems like you have developed your post as an argument
>against this idea, primarily, ie, marketing and so on as the factors
>more determinative than anything else.

yup. maybe you are thinking of "marketing" as strictly a business
term. i'd say flowers make a "marketing" effort to attract bees.
the bee actually has no idea where the "best" pollen is. it "reads"
the "ads" from the flowers, and makes a guess. a lot of artists
think the quality of the work has something to do with its success.
isn't really related.



[from zev]
> most things are interactive if we choose to interact with them

this is a prosaic way to use the word "interactivity". while it's
pretty much un-arguable on one level, it paves the way for a lot of
hype, encourages enthusiastic ignorance and disappointment to people
like boxer. technically, "interactivity" has a real meaning, and an
important distinction from traditional forms.

when there is a tangible change in the WORK not the audience (who's
concepts, sensations, and feelings have nothing to do with
determining this) ideally, a third party notes the state of the
piece. the audience is monitored in some way. then that 3rd party
without any observation of the audience, could detect some change in
the piece (not the audience).