Re: *sigh*
Martin Soukup (msoukup@sparky.inasec.ca)
Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:44:58 -0400
>
> For random discussion only :
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
what is real is purely a question of sociological perspective