On 15/8/2007, "ARN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think I preferred the images to be honest. This I can't quite tell >> what it is meant to do. I can't help thinking it does not what it's >> meant to. > >why always looking for a meaning ? i'm not sure something should always >mean something (else than what it is, in reality). in fact, to be honest >too, i believe in the contrary: a piece of art should not have a >determined meaning, so it remain open to high potential of >interpretations (for those looking for meaning). >art is not communication, despite the big current confusion.
this is a fair point, but i've been more trying to understand what is happening rather than 'what it means' - though that could be considered meaning. i program now and again. i naturally expect things to be clear and this is not clear: what is happening when i do this or that with it? :) >> Like what was said about the images, can't there be more >> control over it? Instead of chars to link/click, a string to >> type/submit. ??? [slightly overwhelmed] ??? > >and.. why are you looking for more control ? i don't know. perhaps control was the wrong word. perhaps influence is a better word. a greater array of influence, or choice in the matter, just to be able to.... > >http://www.x257.com/asrf/ seems not to be a tool allowing you to produce >something you have the feeling to choose, it looks more like a simple >coded machine in the networked reality we share. but a machine, in the traditional sense has a purpose, function, predicatability. this is purposeless and therefor of no value ( ? ) >> it's too spammy. > >may be, that's a matter of style perception concerning machine outputs. > hmmm. does that not count for anything? :) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
