> 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.
>
I agree. I find the lack of a framework to be quite exciting
from an artistic standpoint. I would imagine that with any new art
medium, eventually after much experimentation a framework will develop,
but until that time...
> >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.
>
I think this is more due to the fact that most of the people
creating these spaces are scientists or engineers and not artists.
Artists are just now really entering the frame. At the moment, some of
their cues are being taken from the engineers, but it won't be very long
until they (we) can transcend this.
Kevin