james jwm-art net a écrit : > On 16/8/2007, "ARN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : >>> Quoting ARN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>> a software is always a black box for the user. >>> Not if you're an Emacs user. ;-) >> may be, but are you sure you have a clear view and knowledge about all >> the layers and components in the global system connected to your >> terminal, and required by the software ? let's say for example... what >> about the quantic level of interactions between particles in the core of >> the nuclear reactor feeding the computer with electricity ? ;-) > > > or even do you understand the operation of the electrical pulses in your > brain controlling your fingers to press the little ditty keys on the > keyboard? > > there's a term for this, can't remember it. but for you asrf work, the > lack of understanding manifests at the topmost level, (maybe i should > just try working it out again!?!?!)
yes, may be try again, because the process is very simple, and you may understand it ... ...so i don't think bringing these > other things into it really works. it's a matter of systemic approach. i tried to say that there are always black boxes , unknown parts, something not understandable at one level or another, somewhere in the system you are in interaction with. > somewhere you said it is a big mistake to think that art is communication. > > is there any proof of this? because i think it is of course > communication. if art is not communication, then what is? there's nothing to prove, art is not science. there's surely communication in art, but art is not communication, and i don't see any reason to say that art is something else than art, with a big part of unknown in it, allowing art to be what you want it to be, allowing art to change and redefined itself constantly. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
