On the other hand, if you eliminate gravity and allow your shapes to
be of arbitrary size, you are going to have some very interesting user
access "problems." Small buildings and details will be missed unless
a person shrinks down to the right size at the right place. If you
can come at and move through the landscape at any angle, then you will
be more likely to miss portions of it because there's simply more to
access. This can be aesthetically stimulating. It can also mean that
nobody sees your work because it's lost in the confusion of the
landscape.
>The discussion about post boxes seems to be an attempt to
>begin developing a signifying language which the viewer can "read" in order
>to effectively navigate the space(s). I have no problem with this, it will
>probably even emerge with out our help, but will happen faster, and
>less ambiguously with it.
Yes. We need some kind of (roughly) common semiotic/signifying system to
act as a framework for poetic freedom, after all, poetry is much about
_manipulating_ it's framwork, i.e.. the more rigid framework the more clear
the deviations and manipulations are.
If there's a "need" for this, it's an engineering need, or a marketing
need. It is not an artistic need.
It's nice to see that there already is a V-World 'look' developing,
identifiable metaphors like black background, infinite grids, clear
colours, etc. Some are a result of technology, some just notions of 'what
it should look like'.
>From an artistic standpoint, I don't find this nice at all. It's
anywhere from boring to repressing, depending upon the extent of the
conventions. "Ho hum, another stupid black world with a few objects
in it. Don't these guys know anything about color, or are they just
lazy?" To myself and many others, art is about creation and novelty,
and not about adherance to "accepted" conventions.
Cheers,
Brandon