[NetBehaviour] Art and usage

[Alan Sondheim]

Was the user a viewer? Or someone who worked within/activated an 
interactive program? It's interesting because labor is involved and that 
relates to the notion of audience labor - a phrase often used in relation 
to television commercialization.

Is a painting usable? I'd say yes - let's say a painting perturbs me; the 
painting then functions as a perturbation catalyst. Is this then a 
function of the painting? Is the painting being-used to perturb (i.e. the 
passive mode for example)? Is the painting being used to perturb? Is the 
function of the painting to perturb? Does a user use the painting to 
perturb? And so forth -

Alan

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I encountered an interesting discussion today about contemporary digital art
> that referenced the "user" in a prominent way. I'm wondering whether this
> has become a "thing". Does our art need to be "used"? If so, is its quality
> determined by its "usability"? Will gallery guests start saying, "That was
> so usable. I might buy it." Or "That piece on the left was one of the most
> useful pieces I've seen in years. It left me with this vague sense of still
> using it."
> --
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************
> 
>

==
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/sw.txt
==