From: "Wally Keeler" To: "lewis lacook" , "webartery" , "poeticslistserv" , "arc.hive" <_arc.hive_@lm.va.com.au>, "cupcake kaleidoscope" , "Renee" , "rhizome" , "wryting" Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:11:01 -0500 You are a Unit of Verse in the Unitverse > > hi marisa... > > > > i agree that "digital poetry" is often a romantic term... > > > > what i'm looking for is perhaps this...i've been thinking lately > > about the distinction between functional and decorative, and how it > > applies to art on the web...a lot of the "digital poetry" crowd is > > comprised of artists who make animations of words--at best, the > > reactivity and interaction required of the user is touching rollover > > buttons===which in flash, we know, takes almost no knowledge of code > > at all...these works seem to me to be remaking cinema, which, as you > > and i know, we already have... > > > > i guess it boils down to this: what's the difference between say, a > > piece by mez and the recent gogolchat by jimpunk and christophe > > bruno? because it's here i see the distinction most > > clearly...gogolchat is highly functional:::it explores > > user-interaction...it requires the network in order to manifest > > itself (that being for me one of the true signs of a pure net > > work...mez's connection to the network, at least in regards to her > > multimedia works, is less tangible////the work does require the ! > > network, but in a passive way, that is, it requires email list-servs > > for distribution, and takes much of its language from a kind of > > pantomime of code itself...///it's more interactive than digital > > cinema, but less so than a work like gogolchat (or chris fahey's > > ada1852)---- > > > > me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its > > medium...i want a net art that literally requires the net work in > > order to manifest itself... > > > > bliss > > > > l