Robbin:
All art is *not* virtual reality. That is a nice
catch-phrase, but without distinctions language becomes
useless. Even using the VR phrase to refer to something that
is a representation of something else, artists have been
wrestling with the notion of representation for at least a
century. It's become a very complex issue, but it is safe to
say that paintings/sculpture/photographs/ architecture, and
whatever else you might want to put in this category are
things in and of themselves.
They exist, as someone else remarked in this discussion, in
an entirely different plane than the VR plane.
And while I think that Negroponte is a provocative thinker,
and I've always turned to the back page of Wired first, his
preference for bits over atoms has its limitations. It works
for telecommunications, and it certainly works for conveying
information on one level, but (and I can't even believe that
the time has come where something like this has to be said)
there is still a place in the world for actual objects!
There is a "thing" a quiddity about real objects, about
atoms, if you will. If you, or anyone, can't sense it, then
you can't, and that's fine. But I do know that it exists,
and I know that museums are one place in the world where
that "thing" stares you right in the face (it *can* stare
you in the face wherever you are, but museums specialize in
calling your attention to the uniqueness, richness, and
importance of objects.)
But, once again, I seem to have gotten caught up in
defending an opinion. What I really mean by all of these
postings is that I think that the discussion here is
extremely absorbing, and I'm delighted to be part of such a
stimulating forum.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
