What are we doing here?
After the good news of our funding the anticipation around this has been replaced by a more reflective mood in me. We started this project with a sense of excitement arising from the potential of the digital achieve to change how art is created and experienced. The scarcity effects of yesterday relating to money and finite spaces to display art are fading fast. Massively multiplayer games have taught us that highly social persistent spaces are accessible to people with a decent computer hooked up to a broadband internet connection. These worlds’ yield creative synchronous rich experiences that was impossible in yesterday’s world. But we know all this now, this can’t keep being news! What do we actually do with this and what are the challenges?
This got me thinking about precedence. After a while I ended up at cinema. When the ability to create two dimensional moving pictures was first discovered the potential was also obvious. You could make theatre available to a much wider percent of the population, so at first film was all about filming plays. Luckily this medium was further developed into the precious medium it is today. I believe that this is the task we have ahead of us. Let us try to do one better than merely translating Lynn’s art into something virtual. Let us discuss and investigate how we may come with a suggestion for a new language for art in virtual space. Because art that is native to this new medium deserves the respect its own language implies. This is what I believe we should be doing here.
Comments
Good point Henrik - and remember of course that people didn't know what to do with moving images ... the genre (if that is what it is) only settled down after a couple of decades.
I think this is the nature of media innovation.
And (contra Lev Manovich) the experience of cinema is NOT a particularly appropriate paradigm/model for the likes of Second Life. (Though we can make movies there quite easily!).
M
Posted by: archaeolog
|
May 14, 2006 10:49 PM