Was the user a viewer? Or someone who worked within/activated an interactive program? It's interesting because labor is involved and that relates to the notion of audience labor - a phrase often used in relation to television commercialization.
Is a painting usable? I'd say yes - let's say a painting perturbs me; the painting then functions as a perturbation catalyst. Is this then a function of the painting? Is the painting being-used to perturb (i.e. the passive mode for example)? Is the painting being used to perturb? Is the function of the painting to perturb? Does a user use the painting to perturb? And so forth -
Alan On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Pall Thayer wrote:
I encountered an interesting discussion today about contemporary digital art that referenced the "user" in a prominent way. I'm wondering whether this has become a "thing". Does our art need to be "used"? If so, is its quality determined by its "usability"? Will gallery guests start saying, "That was so usable. I might buy it." Or "That piece on the left was one of the most useful pieces I've seen in years. It left me with this vague sense of still using it." -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
== email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285 music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ current text http://www.alansondheim.org/sw.txt == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
