Re: expectation & degradation

[ follow ups ] [ Barbara London WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

by alex galloway on May 05, 1997 at 15:37:48:

In Reply to: Re: expectation & degradation posted by Nino Rodriguez on May 05, 1997 at 15:30:14:


pete wrote:
"Mach banding, anti-aliasing or 'jaggies', artefacts or 'crawling' --
(animations, .JPGs), moire interference patterns, jittering, low
color depth, 'intentionally' lowered resolution, low polygon counts,
Ascii art, Ansi art, RIP art, 'loader' art, module music, file
corruption, Photoshop filters ;) ."

so I guess we all have our work cut out for us! What we have to
recognize is that degradable media are *not* all analog. But rather that
there is a certain necessarily broken element in digital information
systems, especially the field of artistic production. This will be true
for all media, until it is frictionless, until there is "mediation" no

I'm thinking of Stelarc's "Ping Body", that used the deficiencies of the
internet itself to create techno-body-art. Check out Mark Tribe's "Cyborg Bodies" available in RHIZOME's Contentbase ( Ping Body is not a degraded form, in the traditional sense. But it
gestures toward a new use of technology. It is the *inconsistency* of a
network ping that makes this piece. this is what you describe what you
mention that the *participant* is important. But i don't think that it
is a limiting factor.

let's give it a try...

PING ( 56 data bytes
64 bytes from icmp_seq=0 ttl=249 time=148 ms
64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=249 time=141 ms
64 bytes from icmp_seq=2 ttl=249 time=113 ms
64 bytes from icmp_seq=3 ttl=249 time=159 ms
64 bytes from icmp_seq=4 ttl=249 time=134 ms
64 bytes from icmp_seq=5 ttl=249 time=137 ms

each one is different. I admit though, that we are not used to working
on this scale. the digital world seems so *perfect*.


follow ups:


[ follow ups ] [ Barbara London WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]