neen…

http://www.neen.org/

eduardoN.

—– Original Message —–
From: "mez" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: what is the most non_functional work on the Web
done with Flash?


> At 04:18 PM 29/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >do you know any unflash flash?
>
> non.funct
>
> {
>
>
>
> http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/shutters%20of%20meat/som.htm
>
>
>
>
> - pro][rating][.lucid.txt
> -
> -
>
> http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/netwurker/
> _
> _cr[xxx]oss ova.ring.
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> neen…
>
> http://www.neen.org/

looks kinda flash to me, eduardo. any particular pieces from it you had in mind? i read the
manifesto. that's a real yawner. visited some of the "neenstar" sites and didn't find anything
notable, but i wasn't thorough.

http://www.timehunt.com by Danny Kodicek and friends (UK/Slovenia) is atypical Flash, could be
Shockwave, for instance, if it wasn't so slow, which is more or less a flash fingerprint.
Kodicek is both a Director and a Flash developer. This is a funky learned neo platonist
pythagorean medieval game sort of like myst but the puzzles are harder. actually i found the
puzzles tedious. but some will find them fun. the design, in any case, is pretty funky and this
has some lofty *artistic ambition* combined with imaginative out of the box cerebration. this
took them a couple of years to make. i like that. so much stuff is slap it together.

ja

> looks kinda flash to me, eduardo. any particular pieces from it you had in
mind? i read the
> manifesto. that's a real yawner. visited some of the "neenstar" sites and
didn't find anything
> notable, but i wasn't thorough.
>

I was only referring to the main interface. Well, when considering our
discussion I am not making idelogical agendas part of the recommendation, as
we are talking about flash as a form for delivering content – what that
content is, is another matter. I am mainly looking at how flash is being
used based on the connotations that the material produced with the software
carry up to this point. Most Flash based projects carry a certain look due
to the processing of the Flash program; and based on this, I think that the
interface of the neen site is interesting because it presents a layout
contrary of what a flash site would normally look like. As to what the
content the website offers is of course another matter.

> http://www.timehunt.com by Danny Kodicek and friends (UK/Slovenia) is
atypical Flash, could be
> Shockwave, for instance, if it wasn't so slow, which is more or less a
flash fingerprint.
> Kodicek is both a Director and a Flash developer. This is a funky learned
neo platonist
> pythagorean medieval game sort of like myst but the puzzles are harder.
actually i found the
> puzzles tedious. but some will find them fun. the design, in any case, is
pretty funky and this
> has some lofty *artistic ambition* combined with imaginative out of the
box cerebration. this
> took them a couple of years to make. i like that. so much stuff is slap it
together.

The commitment shows, but I think the site looks like a flash interface.
Shockwave/Flash is not much of a difference in terms of looks – except when
you get into dynamic issues. The look can be considered the same and the
average surfer would not be able to tell them a part. A good example of
this is Natalie Bookchin's metapet, which uses a shockwave interface with
embeded flash movies. I know the programmers, so I know a little about the
development of the project by using both programs: http://www.metapet.net .
At this point, the platform starts to become irrelevant because what is
important is what the project should be doing… new media is hard to define
for this reasons.

Best,

eduardoN.

> > looks kinda flash to me, eduardo. any particular pieces from it you had in
> mind? i read the
> > manifesto. that's a real yawner. visited some of the "neenstar" sites and
> didn't find anything
> > notable, but i wasn't thorough.
> >
>
> I was only referring to the main interface. Well, when considering our
> discussion I am not making idelogical agendas part of the recommendation, as
> we are talking about flash as a form for delivering content – what that
> content is, is another matter. I am mainly looking at how flash is being
> used based on the connotations that the material produced with the software
> carry up to this point. Most Flash based projects carry a certain look due
> to the processing of the Flash program; and based on this, I think that the
> interface of the neen site is interesting because it presents a layout
> contrary of what a flash site would normally look like. As to what the
> content the website offers is of course another matter.

I use Flash SWF imports in my Director work. Because it's good with vector animations. And I see
little point in being 'anti-Flash'.

But I do have some issues with it.

The main reason the Flash plugin is far more ubiquitous than the Shockwave plugin is because the
Flash plugin download is about 500kb whereas the Shockwave plugin download is about 7mb. And
this is congruent with a mentality that informs not only commercial work but also a lot of
net.art. What do people have time for? If people only have time for a quick fix, the art is tits
up. Of course, there is then the obligation to make it worth the time, to have a sense of the
time one is demanding and 'repay' that 'investment'. But we should question the standards that
are set by Flash work. All too often Flash work is a quick flash and not much more. We don't
expect enough from net.art.

And of course there are ways, in both Flash and Shockwave work, to stream information in as
needed.

Also, it seems like people too easily accept a 1-5 frames per second framerate. We ourselves are
about 60 Hz (cycles per second) wetware. When electric light first became public, it was set at
about 100-120 cycles per second. But that gave people headaches. So it was toned down to 60.
Depending on the animation, one can get away with anything from 16 to 30 frames per second and
have an acceptably smooth animation. 1-5 is just not there. It jerks around in a most annoying
manner. Unless of course that is somehow exploited to the benefit of the piece, which is doable
but requires artistic treatment.

Also, the look of Flash is dominated by vector images, which are not photographic in quality.
That vector-dominated look works in some cases, but it can easily become a 'flash' look in the
same way that some bitmaps look 'photoshopped' when they are indiscriminately and clichedly
filtered. Or the way that certain types of bitmap processing can be very Shockwave, though there
is less of imaging Lingo around because it involves programming.

The vector image is particularly good for cartoons. And indeed we see a lot of Flash cartoons or
cartoon-like look and mentality. I like some cartoons. Here's one by Andrei Karpov:
http://www.andrekarpov.com/hell.html . But a whole net.art of cartoon-like production is
unsettling and disappointing.

Don't accept the defaults. If you're going to use Flash, make it unflash. or its going to be
more of the same. I gather there are about two million people using Flash. I gather there are
about 200,000 using Director.

Of course flash work does not have to look cartoonish. http://levitated.net is a fairly rich
source of flash work that is also programmerly or otherwise different from the cartoon look of
vectors.

> > http://www.timehunt.com by Danny Kodicek and friends (UK/Slovenia) is
> atypical Flash, could be
> > Shockwave, for instance, if it wasn't so slow, which is more or less a
> flash fingerprint.
> > Kodicek is both a Director and a Flash developer. This is a funky learned
> neo platonist
> > pythagorean medieval game sort of like myst but the puzzles are harder.
> actually i found the
> > puzzles tedious. but some will find them fun. the design, in any case, is
> pretty funky and this
> > has some lofty *artistic ambition* combined with imaginative out of the
> box cerebration. this
> > took them a couple of years to make. i like that. so much stuff is slap it
> together.
>
> The commitment shows, but I think the site looks like a flash interface.
> Shockwave/Flash is not much of a difference in terms of looks – except when
> you get into dynamic issues. The look can be considered the same and the
> average surfer would not be able to tell them a part.

I'm not really talking about the average surfer, though, Eduardo. I'm talking about art.

Flash and Director are best used together, if the project involves vector animations and
programming. When it comes to using bitmaps, Flash does not begin to compare with Director. Or
audio. Or video. Or 3D. And Lingo is 30-60 times faster than Actionscript.

And of course Flash and Director are not the only technologies relevant to net.art.

> A good example of
> this is Natalie Bookchin's metapet, which uses a shockwave interface with
> embeded flash movies. I know the programmers, so I know a little about the
> development of the project by using both programs: http://www.metapet.net .
> At this point, the platform starts to become irrelevant because what is
> important is what the project should be doing… new media is hard to define
> for this reasons.

Cartoons…yes, they'd be using Director as the programming shell and importing Flash SWF
cartoons and perhaps buttons into it.

ja












.

I downloaded flash again, after six months without, for sake of Michael's
"Five Operas". After the, as the French say, "telechargement", I was shown
not Michael's piece, but the shockwave logo, canned music and a delightful
animation extolling the virtues of Shockwave. Only after closing this window
(which conviniently opened full screen) was I able to see what I had
obtained the plug in for.

I doubt this was an intended co-opting of Michael's pieces. I doubt Michael
was paid for this advertisement. I doubt any likelihood of painters
accepting images signed by canvas salesmen; or filmmakers introducing their
films with the name of the film stock they used.

In an ideal Eryk Salvaggio cultural dictorship, logos would be imposed on
work by intent (Warhol) or by sponsorship (The Exxon-Mobil Alligator
Ballet). Otherwise, there's a name for this in activist circles: Net.Art,
meet "Ad Creep". In Hollywood, it's name is the dullard alliterative,
"Product Placement." In Product Placement, artists receive compensation for
creating space for advertising within their art. It is notable that
Communist Russia and, more recently, Saddam Hussein, were totalitarian
regimes with billboards. We in Enlightened Capitalist societies know the
proper use of Billboards: as a forum for imposing advertisements onto
nature. In Iraq, they were used for portraits of Mr. Hussein, America's
Favorite Socialist. I should like to suggest that when one views the
Macromedia Logo, one imagines, instead, a painting of Mr. Saddam Hussein,
Mao, or Lenin. If only the IE logo was swept off of browsers and replaced
with Bill Gates' face.

Email is also co-opted; Yahoo! email accounts, msn.com accounts, etc; aren't
"addresses", they are "advertisements." (Contest entries for best
combination of "addresses" and "advertisements" are currently being
accepted. Example: "Advertresses" or "Addresstisements"), It's a wonder you
can't register email accounts reflecting your personality through soft drink
choice:

"Email me! ErykSalvaggio@MountainDew.Com for an XTREMAIL!!"

I currently advertise my cable modem provider: rr.maine.net. They haven't
caught corporate branding by the horns just yet. They still subscribe to
archaic notions of a functional, formalist network identity-

rr = road runner service,
maine = the state I am in,
net = I am a subscriber, not an employee.

Had I lived one town over, my email address would have been changed from one
brand name for AT&T's cable service to another brand name for AT&T's cable
service, reflecting a takeover of the cable service area- not by another
company, but by another name for a division of that company. People all over
Maine and New Hampshire had to notify every single friend of the email
address change- and incidentally spread the word about a new brand of hi
speed services!

Something interesting happened in the web's early days. Companies just
didn't think of cyberspace as a place to perpetuate their brands. It wasn't
enough to buy space on the top of a web site simply showing the coca cola
logo- the way the coca cola logo is plastered on subway buses, television,
radio, shopping carts, magazines, newspapers, clocks, "Come In We're Open"
signs and "Sorry, We Are CLOSED" signs. Instead, companies needed their
websites to get "Hits" and so they made their ads "links" and measured their
success not by media saturation but by "link throughs" which is tantamount
to pulling your ads off of a television show because not enough people
changed the channel to find more of your ads.

The result of this is naivete on the web when it comes to ad creep. It's
like no one is concerned because corporate America has backed off the web,
based on some archaic idea that clicks are more important than selling
product to your subconscious mind. But it's even more subversive. Or, even
more anti-subversive. If we haven't already passed the mark, I foresee a day
when more people use Yahoo than watch a single episode of "Frasier". Do you
really think the companies will labor under the delusion that the web is not
a valuable mind space to occupy, and leave it to banner ads extolling the
virtues of pornography and Tom Ridge's Terror- Inducing "Plans for Saving
Your Family in Case of Terrorism Occurs Because Democrats are Weak On
Defense" ? Has anyone seen this ad? It's in the New York Times Online
pretty often. I'm reading a newspaper article about Howard Dean and I see
Tom Ridge or some guy from the Homeland Security Team in full color, high
quality QuickTime movies talking to me about how to contact family members
in case Tom Brokaw is mailed Anthrax again.

And really, I don't see how that is any different from the Macromedia Logo.

-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: "List@Rhizome. Org" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:17 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: what is the most non_functional work on the Web
done with Flash?


>
> > > looks kinda flash to me, eduardo. any particular pieces from it you
had in
> > mind? i read the
> > > manifesto. that's a real yawner. visited some of the "neenstar" sites
and
> > didn't find anything
> > > notable, but i wasn't thorough.
> > >
> >
> > I was only referring to the main interface. Well, when considering our
> > discussion I am not making idelogical agendas part of the
recommendation, as
> > we are talking about flash as a form for delivering content – what that
> > content is, is another matter. I am mainly looking at how flash is
being
> > used based on the connotations that the material produced with the
software
> > carry up to this point. Most Flash based projects carry a certain look
due
> > to the processing of the Flash program; and based on this, I think that
the
> > interface of the neen site is interesting because it presents a layout
> > contrary of what a flash site would normally look like. As to what the
> > content the website offers is of course another matter.
>
> I use Flash SWF imports in my Director work. Because it's good with vector
animations. And I see
> little point in being 'anti-Flash'.
>
> But I do have some issues with it.
>
> The main reason the Flash plugin is far more ubiquitous than the Shockwave
plugin is because the
> Flash plugin download is about 500kb whereas the Shockwave plugin download
is about 7mb. And
> this is congruent with a mentality that informs not only commercial work
but also a lot of
> net.art. What do people have time for? If people only have time for a
quick fix, the art is tits
> up. Of course, there is then the obligation to make it worth the time, to
have a sense of the
> time one is demanding and 'repay' that 'investment'. But we should
question the standards that
> are set by Flash work. All too often Flash work is a quick flash and not
much more. We don't
> expect enough from net.art.
>
> And of course there are ways, in both Flash and Shockwave work, to stream
information in as
> needed.
>
> Also, it seems like people too easily accept a 1-5 frames per second
framerate. We ourselves are
> about 60 Hz (cycles per second) wetware. When electric light first became
public, it was set at
> about 100-120 cycles per second. But that gave people headaches. So it was
toned down to 60.
> Depending on the animation, one can get away with anything from 16 to 30
frames per second and
> have an acceptably smooth animation. 1-5 is just not there. It jerks
around in a most annoying
> manner. Unless of course that is somehow exploited to the benefit of the
piece, which is doable
> but requires artistic treatment.
>
> Also, the look of Flash is dominated by vector images, which are not
photographic in quality.
> That vector-dominated look works in some cases, but it can easily become a
'flash' look in the
> same way that some bitmaps look 'photoshopped' when they are
indiscriminately and clichedly
> filtered. Or the way that certain types of bitmap processing can be very
Shockwave, though there
> is less of imaging Lingo around because it involves programming.
>
> The vector image is particularly good for cartoons. And indeed we see a
lot of Flash cartoons or
> cartoon-like look and mentality. I like some cartoons. Here's one by
Andrei Karpov:
> http://www.andrekarpov.com/hell.html . But a whole net.art of cartoon-like
production is
> unsettling and disappointing.
>
> Don't accept the defaults. If you're going to use Flash, make it unflash.
or its going to be
> more of the same. I gather there are about two million people using Flash.
I gather there are
> about 200,000 using Director.
>
> Of course flash work does not have to look cartoonish.
http://levitated.net is a fairly rich
> source of flash work that is also programmerly or otherwise different from
the cartoon look of
> vectors.
>
> > > http://www.timehunt.com by Danny Kodicek and friends (UK/Slovenia) is
> > atypical Flash, could be
> > > Shockwave, for instance, if it wasn't so slow, which is more or less a
> > flash fingerprint.
> > > Kodicek is both a Director and a Flash developer. This is a funky
learned
> > neo platonist
> > > pythagorean medieval game sort of like myst but the puzzles are
harder.
> > actually i found the
> > > puzzles tedious. but some will find them fun. the design, in any case,
is
> > pretty funky and this
> > > has some lofty *artistic ambition* combined with imaginative out of
the
> > box cerebration. this
> > > took them a couple of years to make. i like that. so much stuff is
slap it
> > together.
> >
> > The commitment shows, but I think the site looks like a flash interface.
> > Shockwave/Flash is not much of a difference in terms of looks – except
when
> > you get into dynamic issues. The look can be considered the same and
the
> > average surfer would not be able to tell them a part.
>
> I'm not really talking about the average surfer, though, Eduardo. I'm
talking about art.
>
> Flash and Director are best used together, if the project involves vector
animations and
> programming. When it comes to using bitmaps, Flash does not begin to
compare with Director. Or
> audio. Or video. Or 3D. And Lingo is 30-60 times faster than Actionscript.
>
> And of course Flash and Director are not the only technologies relevant to
net.art.
>
> > A good example of
> > this is Natalie Bookchin's metapet, which uses a shockwave interface
with
> > embeded flash movies. I know the programmers, so I know a little about
the
> > development of the project by using both programs:
http://www.metapet.net .
> > At this point, the platform starts to become irrelevant because what is
> > important is what the project should be doing… new media is hard to
define
> > for this reasons.
>
> Cartoons…yes, they'd be using Director as the programming shell and
importing Flash SWF
> cartoons and perhaps buttons into it.
>
> ja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hey Jim,

> Don't accept the defaults. If you're going to use Flash, make it unflash.
or its going to be
> more of the same. I gather there are about two million people using Flash.
I gather there are
> about 200,000 using Director.

What is making it "unflash" for you? For me it would be what neen.org did
with their interface – static no movement, yet an intricate way of
accessing information (do not mind the information as already stated), but
as I mentioned before, I think their approach is very "unflash for me,"
what is unflash for you? levitated.net still looks likes flash/shockwave to
me; so maybe I am beating a dead horse by asking you, but if you think you
can elaborate it would be great.

> I'm not really talking about the average surfer, though, Eduardo. I'm
talking about art.

Wow, this sounds a bit elitist, but I can live with it. After all, not
everyone is interested in film analysis, and here we are analysing Flash –
which is downplayed by the old school of net.artists by the way. Check this
out:

"Net art became popular when it became a part of the American art market,
which means a very superficial approach [developed]. It became known as
flash animations and other drag and drop entertainment. It is a pity, but it
is probably a completely normal process."
–Olia Lialina from:
http://www.student.uib.no/~stud2081/utstilling/bosma.htm

So, Old School could care less, but I care more.
:)

eduardoN.

> What is making it "unflash" for you? For me it would be what neen.org did
> with their interface – static no movement, yet an intricate way of
> accessing information (do not mind the information as already stated), but
> as I mentioned before, I think their approach is very "unflash for me,"
> what is unflash for you? levitated.net still looks likes flash/shockwave
to
> me; so maybe I am beating a dead horse by asking you, but if you think you
> can elaborate it would be great.

I didn't think neen was terrible. It was OK. The manifesto was a yawner. The
windowing was cool. The background was color blind and typeface happy,
clownish. The menu on a toolbar was cool. Concerning flash menus, check out
http://www.nobodyhere.com . The cursor changes were sloppy at neen. But
there weren't too many menu options and what was there was well focussed.
Intimations of the art app, awareness of a software art context, which is
cool. Like I said, I didn't check out much of the work, so if you have some
great links to work there, please do post em. I agree that the 'art app'
approach, the windowing, is relatively unusual. I made a tool for similar
types of windowing in shockwave stuff. There's no 'movie clip' in Director,
just individual sprites (unless blah blah…).

Various things come to mind concerning unflash flash or unx web.art. Go
fullscreen no browser chrome. Escape the browser. Make stuff that might as
well be a desktop exe or otherwise avoids the frame of the browser. Or if
you use the browser frame, use it consciously. Don't settle for 1-5 frames
per second unless it suits the piece. Know the strengths and weaknesses of
the tool. Learn some programming. Be aware of Flash or x cliches. If you use
them, use them consciously. Don't settle for all vectors unless it's
appropriate to the piece. Realize that you are in the realm of software art
if you're using Flash. Don't settle for a one-off. Work on something for
years once you find something worth making that you were made to make and no
one else. Surf all sorts of work. Follow all sorts of lists. Be a
polyartist. Help others not just yourself. Have an interesting links page.
Make the art a meaningful extension of your emotional and intellectual range
as a human being. And that of the viewer/wreader/player/whatever. Don't be
blind to the fact that there are thousands of companies involved from your
computer to the software in it to the internet connection through the phone
line or cable or whatever. Realize it will probably all disappear but try to
show people some real art that you mean down to your toes. Create stuff that
will make others not settle for less. Make it brilliant intellectually and
experientially. Further the art.

> > I'm not really talking about the average surfer, though, Eduardo. I'm
> talking about art.
>
> Wow, this sounds a bit elitist, but I can live with it. After all, not
> everyone is interested in film analysis, and here we are analysing
Flash –
> which is downplayed by the old school of net.artists by the way. Check
this
> out:
>
> "Net art became popular when it became a part of the American art market,
> which means a very superficial approach [developed]. It became known as
> flash animations and other drag and drop entertainment. It is a pity, but
it
> is probably a completely normal process."
> –Olia Lialina from:
> http://www.student.uib.no/~stud2081/utstilling/bosma.htm
>
> So, Old School could care less, but I care more.
> :)
>
> eduardoN.

Yeah, I'm with you on that, Eduardo, I care also. "Heroic" couldn't care
less, it's true, but once it started moving into software art, many of them
were without a paddle anyway. All that remained was to call it dead and beat
a hasty retreat. I've been involved in the Web since 95 too, and the
Internet before that, like many of us have, but I was never interested in
strictly conceptual net.art.

ja
http://vispo.com

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the Shockwave or the Flash plugin Eryk, but, for the
information of the people who use Shockwave (Director) on the list, one can link, alternatively,
to

The Shockwave Players:
Windows
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_win> English, French and German
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerj_win> Japanese
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayerk_win> Korean
Macintosh
<http://www.macromedia.com/go/full_shockwaveplayer_mac> English, French, German, Japanese and
Korean

so that people download the plugin *directly* and can install it without the bumph from
Macromedia. This also precludes some of the installation problems that can otherwise occur. I
don't think it's in the Macromedia rules, but, as Eryk points out, the installation process is
rather unfair in its deflecting attention from the work to the plugin. Not only is it unfair,
but the installation does fail in some cases. Whereas downloading it directly, as above, does
not present that potential problem.

ja


> I downloaded flash again, after six months without, for sake of Michael's
> "Five Operas". After the, as the French say, "telechargement", I was shown
> not Michael's piece, but the shockwave logo, canned music and a delightful
> animation extolling the virtues of Shockwave. Only after closing this window
> (which conviniently opened full screen) was I able to see what I had
> obtained the plug in for.