Tuomo Valkonen
Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:35:40 -0700
On 2007-10-09, Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Incidentally, and to get an idea of the *gravity* the situation: > compare with ... Egypt and Greece, say, of the past. > > Were they not--ironically--more *artistically advanced* [read: > provided with a more vivid imagination] still than ... hem, > *we* anno 2007? (Hello *Teddy* [Adorno], who once called our > *modern history* [cultural] *progressing* rather a regression > into pre-agrarian times.) Umm... even cave-men must have had more vidid art and architecture than that of the more general chronic form of arrogance known as modernism. As for more post-modern stuff, it takes taste, which few have. Banalities are easy. > Guess what?! icons are a bit limited--or then are completely > arbitrary--as a medium and language to be used in defining and > describing tasks to be accomplished through a *fantasy*- [sigh] > less automaton and computer. They are wrong metaphors--actually a > kind of aphasia, or incapability to speak and explain--as much as > *cute* and *charming* [sigh] they may appear. Icons are very limited in their expressive power, and therefore they only work when there are just a few of them, that can be easily distinguished. But the typical WIMPshit application has tens of tiny ones lined up in a toolbar. -- Tuomo