This is a classic example of the ongoing (mis)communication(s) between artists and scientists. In this case, I think Mathieu is confusing the purpose of art with the purpose of a scientific paper. One's aim is to establish and demonstrate facts, the other to explore possibilities and inspire imaginative (and often non-linear) connections.
For me, far too much of this art-science stuff errs on the side of technical demonstration. And far too many artists lack the training to engage with the real media of their work and instead hire technicians to realize it for them. The flip side of that coin is that poetry is often unquantifiable ("program me something sad" says the media artist to their trusty technician) and causes segfaults in engineer-type brains ;-)
D.
On 12/22/10 9:18 PM, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Matju, I see your point and I won't try to convince you that this work is something you don't believe it to be.
However, I believe our disagreement born from a very different viewpoint on the nature of an """"artistic"""" intervention. Your technical analysis is excellent, but it seems to me it goes over the real scope of the work.