> What fascinates me is the possibilities of inventing new and different
> semiotic systems for V-Worlds, based on it's natural characteristics, like
> no gravity, no (need for) fixed size, morphable form, etc. This I find
> immensely fascinating, yet impossibly big. If not impossible, than at least
> far ahead.
>
>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.
Possibly problems, yes, but still only pragmatic problems. I would have
thought you would find the artistic possiblities overshadowing the minor
obstacles :)
> 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.
Kevin:
> 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...
I still claim that this is an artistical 'need'. All art refers to
something, either through concious references from the artist, or through
the references that shape themselves in the observers mind when the piece
is view/read/visited. As it is now, cyberspace has to lend it's references
from other fields, which is a natural transitiory state. But a 'native'
cyberspace basis for reference is evolving, and that can only enrichen the
vocabulary of artist's working here. If for nothing else, as something to
revolt against (ie. 'I'm not following the mainstream visual image of the
marked forces'). You might argue that there isn't an artistic 'need' for
the framework as such, in that you can create cyberspace art without it.
But for cyberart to become something of it's own, not just an extention of
other media, it needs a framework to play within, around or against. Now,
cyberspace is mostly a possible techological infrastructure (at least in
terms of real 3d), we need a cultural framework as well.
Torbjoern:
> 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'.
Brandon:
>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.
>
Kevin:
> 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.
Andy:
>Fortunately, the history of art is pretty much one artist or group getting
>so popular that they set an "accepted" style, then someone else coming
>and tearing it down to build something totally different. If every
>engineer and marketing analyst in the world agree on a common
>landscape for cyberspace, that just leaves more room for artists to do
>something different.
Brandon, calm down. Convetions doesn't mean _you_ need to follow them,
instead it gives something to evolve from. Of course art isn't about
adherance to 'accepted' conventions (although some gallries might give
another impression).
Personaly, I don't think artists will be dominating the look of cyberspace
anymore than they (we) do in the real world. Design will be controlled by
advertising comp, which means slick and professional results, ie. better
than the anemic examples seen around now. But as frontrunners and
explorers, artists will survive, perhaps we should get going too:)
-----------------------------------------
Torbjoern Caspersen casper@due.unit.no
http://www.stud.unit.no/~casper/
Student of Architecture
at the Norwegian faculty of technology, NTH, Trondheim.