On the side of the physical
"Virtual art is inherently less satisfying that RL art. This result from the
relative sensory deprevation inherent in a virtual medium. Therefore, the best
way to examine true interaction is via physical interactive instalations"
This isn't tenable. It denies the entire history of film and TV, for
one thing. Neither of these are "real," and to make any impact they
often rely on the audience's willingness to suspend disbelief.
There are also many paintings which are terribly compelling, but not
"real." How could they be? It's just pigment.
No, Art is about believing in things. It is not fundamentally about
reality, unless you take all of reality to be a matter of believing in
things.
and for the virtual
"Physical art is inherently limited by physics. Your creations are rooted in
these dimensions. Give up physical art, and come play in the continum. All other
art is fruitless"
Anyone who's spent any amount of time with computers knows that these
are limited as well, and the limitations ultimately derive from
physics. How long things take, how many keys you can bang on, how
bright your screen or HMD is....
This is all good food for thought, but heavens, dare I say it - the
world is so much more of a "Moderate Mushy Wooshy Land" than these
extremely idealistic prescriptions describe. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon