Comments on: The Aesthetics of Browsers http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/ As relevant as Eric Fischl. New York art news, reviews and gossip. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:08:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: stephe? http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54893 stephe? Thu, 01 May 2008 00:29:20 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54893 One thing that I like in particular about web 2.0 site structures is the standardizing of art viewing via lists, pages, nodes, etc. Which can obviously be likened to gallery walls, rooms, frames, pedestals etc. Also 2.0 download speeds, render speeds, plugin/object types have standards to be followed or broken. Seems obvious I suppose, but maybe not to everyone as was mentioned - it wasn't that obvious to me at first but I dum. One could ask if then web 3.0 and beyond will change these standards or "neutralities" yet again, and will they keep changing every few years? Most brick & mortar gallery consumers probably enjoy that similar neutralities don't change that often there. And it isn't just IMAGE management, what about text/css/html/code/script art? I do alot of this type of art and have to still deal with sizes, database loading and rendering speeds (for instance thousands of span objects take a beautiful amount of left->right->top->bottom browser processing time where table cells do not) and such. I for one am a standards freak... I love working with limitations, for instance will play chess only with Staunton pieces. And there is the anecdote of how the width of 2 roman horse asses became a standard leading eventually to space-shuttle sizing. Or more relevantly with web animation I think its cool that (via Tom?) more artists are working within the limits of gif format and avoiding the flash/shock/qt route. But for better/worse I wouldn't expect these browser neutralities to be frozen for very long. One thing that I like in particular about web 2.0 site structures is the standardizing of art viewing via lists, pages, nodes, etc. Which can obviously be likened to gallery walls, rooms, frames, pedestals etc. Also 2.0 download speeds, render speeds, plugin/object types have standards to be followed or broken. Seems obvious I suppose, but maybe not to everyone as was mentioned - it wasn’t that obvious to me at first but I dum. One could ask if then web 3.0 and beyond will change these standards or “neutralities” yet again, and will they keep changing every few years? Most brick & mortar gallery consumers probably enjoy that similar neutralities don’t change that often there.

And it isn’t just IMAGE management, what about text/css/html/code/script art? I do alot of this type of art and have to still deal with sizes, database loading and rendering speeds (for instance thousands of span objects take a beautiful amount of left->right->top->bottom browser processing time where table cells do not) and such.

I for one am a standards freak… I love working with limitations, for instance will play chess only with Staunton pieces. And there is the anecdote of how the width of 2 roman horse asses became a standard leading eventually to space-shuttle sizing. Or more relevantly with web animation I think its cool that (via Tom?) more artists are working within the limits of gif format and avoiding the flash/shock/qt route. But for better/worse I wouldn’t expect these browser neutralities to be frozen for very long.

]]> By: Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Collection or Clutter: Do You Toss or Save Grampa’s Old Paintings? http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54629 Tomorrow Museum » Archive » Collection or Clutter: Do You Toss or Save Grampa’s Old Paintings? Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:09:10 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54629 [...] is different than as a shape. And the sentimental impulse just might not be there without it. Says Art Fag City on this subject: People experience sculpture differently than painting for example, because there [...] [...] is different than as a shape. And the sentimental impulse just might not be there without it. Says Art Fag City on this subject: People experience sculpture differently than painting for example, because there [...]

]]> By: L.M. http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54340 L.M. Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:58:08 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54340 True, it was through Tom's blg posts that I first found critical discussion on work specifically for browsers. (admittedly at a time when these were not issues for me) True, it was through Tom’s blg posts that I first found critical discussion on work specifically for browsers. (admittedly at a time when these were not issues for me)

]]> By: tom moody http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54236 tom moody Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:36:50 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54236 We had quite a few conversations about this on my DMTree blog. There was a series of posts responding to MTAA's simple net art diagram where I was arguing that the art happened in originating artist's browser (and the recipient's) rather than with unpacking protocols out on the open net in the Net Art 1.0 manner. At least the art I was most interested in. (I think that was before L.M.'s time at the Tree.) In the previous thread I brought up "leveling" on the Net as a dpi/browser issue rather than a social hierarchy issue--that was an extension of those earlier conversations. I'm happy Paddy, Bennett, and others are articulating such concepts in this thread. Not claiming authorship, just a strong bias towards the idea. We had quite a few conversations about this on my DMTree blog. There was a series of posts responding to MTAA’s simple net art diagram where I was arguing that the art happened in originating artist’s browser (and the recipient’s) rather than with unpacking protocols out on the open net in the Net Art 1.0 manner. At least the art I was most interested in. (I think that was before L.M.’s time at the Tree.) In the previous thread I brought up “leveling” on the Net as a dpi/browser issue rather than a social hierarchy issue–that was an extension of those earlier conversations. I’m happy Paddy, Bennett, and others are articulating such concepts in this thread. Not claiming authorship, just a strong bias towards the idea.

]]> By: Art Fag City http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54194 Art Fag City Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:11:37 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54194 Justin: I agree, location does play a roll in browser aesthetics particularly in an institutional setting. L.M. It's funny - I almost didn't publish this because the ideas seem so obvious, but then I figured there's probably a lot of people who don't ever think about this stuff because there's no reason to, so it might be useful in helping people get a little closer to understanding some of the formal problem solving skills required of the net artist. Justin: I agree, location does play a roll in browser aesthetics particularly in an institutional setting.

L.M. It’s funny - I almost didn’t publish this because the ideas seem so obvious, but then I figured there’s probably a lot of people who don’t ever think about this stuff because there’s no reason to, so it might be useful in helping people get a little closer to understanding some of the formal problem solving skills required of the net artist.

]]> By: L.M. http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54193 L.M. Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:55:42 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54193 Browser Aesthetics. So well put, since I'd been banging my sorry head against a wall lately, just trying to find a way to articulate that very thing to people who aren't exposed to much net art. Browser Aesthetics. So well put, since I’d been banging my sorry head against a wall lately, just trying to find a way to articulate that very thing to people who aren’t exposed to much net art.

]]> By: justin http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-54179 justin Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:49:45 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/04/28/the-aesthetics-of-browsers/#comment-54179 good post. I agree that a large part of an artist's web practice is image file management and display. one reason i enjoy double happiness is because i usually check it from my 12" laptop and the authors tend to rarely resize the content to fit the blog's frame. some may find it annoying, but i kinda like the way default sizes can create such new dialog among images. (i've always thought of dubhap's image posts as collages) one thing i'll add is the idea of the portable browser and the way location can play its roll in browser aesthetics. as we know, people dont just view art online from the privacy of their home. viewing online work in public starts to make me think of live performance or something. with added elements that can complement the work, or severely detract from it. good post.
I agree that a large part of an artist’s web practice is image file management and display. one reason i enjoy double happiness is because i usually check it from my 12″ laptop and the authors tend to rarely resize the content to fit the blog’s frame. some may find it annoying, but i kinda like the way default sizes can create such new dialog among images. (i’ve always thought of dubhap’s image posts as collages)
one thing i’ll add is the idea of the portable browser and the way location can play its roll in browser aesthetics. as we know, people dont just view art online from the privacy of their home. viewing online work in public starts to make me think of live performance or something. with added elements that can complement the work, or severely detract from it.

]]>