Concerning space 3D environments: pictorial, virtual
and literal space.

> space in
virtual environments has no absolute scale and
no distance.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Instead XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
scale and distance are relative measuremnts. This is also
> true of pictorial space using the size of familiar objects. In an
> abstract environment, or in a environment where the objects are
> changing, these relationships are dynamic, but are still literal.
> In the case that no objects exist, color or value can be used
> in a similar way.
>

#!/bin/csh
echo "quand il me prend dans ses bras"
sleep 3 seconds
echo "il me parle tout bas"
sleep 3 seconds
echo "je vois la vie en rose"
sleep 3 seconds
echo "il me dit des mots d'amour"
sleep 3 seconds
echo "des mots de tous les jour"
sleep 3 seconds
echo "Ca me fais quelque chose"
exit
But I
>>>worry about this hope. Are strategies for text ultimately
>>>tangentially (rather than explicitly) appropriate as an approach
>>>to art. How is it possible to distinguish a textual approach from
>>>any other approach. Do New Media ideas (which I feel are currently
>>>based in the structure of text) have the potential to develop
>>>other strategies?

They dont link together, but each link away to something
else. In this way, there isnt some connect the dots path you are
supposed to make between the photos, but more, you move from the photos
away to other memory and ideas even though those memories and ideas are
inaccessible. What made it fantastic was that the photos were grouped
with the shapes to say all of these belong together, but they are not
part of the same narratives.

Not the literal space of a simulated environment, but the
conceptual space that exists outside of pictorial space, but close to
it. Not that "an essential" equalizing method was actually developed,
but that an arbitrary similarity was asigned. This is a conceptual
space with functionality and rules although no actual substance.

And then to use what video
has done for the image as still-life as a way to "activate" the
functions. What does this mean – only that image-work can exist in
systems of interaction that are outside of a search for truth or
spirituality that is not simply chaotic. But still feels like both. I am
here considering Duchamp's "skill in aiming," but also, mainly, The
interactive piano that was shown at MediaScapes. (track-ball, midi
controlled grand piano).

Building a ladder only sheep can climb, stacking the shingles and
inhabiting the wood shed.

I feel that we are taught to view text as the primary structure of art.
This
might be causing problems with breaking through to new great works. I
think that there is hope that 'text as the structure of art' might lead
to new great works (or already has lead to new great works..). But I
worry about this hope.

Are strategies for text ultimately tangentially
>>>(rather than explicitly) appropriate as an approach to art?
Or is text not the apropriate approach to the concept of a
language or a language system.

foreach i ( f(x) = (text * 2) + (exit -k))

echo $i
/bin/cp $i art.$i.txt
end