> First, could it be that much of what we call art (ie., art as object...)
> has to do with that which signifies meaning....according to
> some...=E3ultural code.
This seems to be the key to me. Elsewhere I've argued that art
has moved from self-referential artifact to virtual initiator
since the sixties (with artists like Warhol, Sol Lewitt, On
Kawara, etc..). The suggestion is that virtual art pre-dates
virtual reality (except pioneers like Sutherland) by a couple
of decades.
The problem with this kind of art is that it's (by definition)
intangible - you don't frame it in gilt and sell it at a profit
and this has given the art establishment lots of headaches. One
consiquence is the compromise between artifact and idea best
known as postModernism.
If anybody is interested my essay "Reality versus Illusion" deals
with these ideas and appeared in the ACM SIGGRAPH 93 Visual
Proceedings.
Paul
brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> has to do with that which signifies meaning....according to
> some...=E3ultural code.
This seems to be the key to me. Elsewhere I've argued that art
has moved from self-referential artifact to virtual initiator
since the sixties (with artists like Warhol, Sol Lewitt, On
Kawara, etc..). The suggestion is that virtual art pre-dates
virtual reality (except pioneers like Sutherland) by a couple
of decades.
The problem with this kind of art is that it's (by definition)
intangible - you don't frame it in gilt and sell it at a profit
and this has given the art establishment lots of headaches. One
consiquence is the compromise between artifact and idea best
known as postModernism.
If anybody is interested my essay "Reality versus Illusion" deals
with these ideas and appeared in the ACM SIGGRAPH 93 Visual
Proceedings.
Paul
brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx