conf.{C}.OLD1.&and.conf.NEW1.pres.nttn.resp(onse)
The main question, and criticism, food for thought certainly, that I was given at my conference presentation was about the complexity of the system, and inherent limitations of (fixed) databases, even in combination with each other. Is there a point where it takes off, becomes its own? Can it be more intelligent, or will it just be a more cumbersome project?
The other Jack’s (Jack C.’s) project threw up the question of relation of the text to the visual impression, with regards to interpretation by an audience. We were wondering about control (of the artist, the audience) over the making of meaning. With this interesting over-arching idea space in mind, I would argue the text-basis of my system #3, “no1” or “The World on Your Birthday” is the demarcation point to my overall conference project, the system inspired architecture and design (facade) of funkelsteine.com.
On the question of meaning then, and particularly of this as (web, and other kinds of) design and taking systems into account: I would argue, the intersecting space where design takes on the features of system is an interesting space for design certainly, for systems too, to the mind of the designer again, where for systems things are a little more binary. Does it qualify as system? Yes/no. Apart from this, what is the significance of a category like “being interesting” for systems –– something I ask myself at this point.
For my project though, some of the take-aways from our class did directly inspire ideas for the building process: the interesting ones I think I touched on are –
– simple rules can lead to complex results (this one is basic, but also:)
– randomized access point for system initiation
– integrating of interesting results in the physical sphere, digital rendering, cross-over of things like Ron Resch’s paper work
– polygon and processing system inspiration applied to design; random, systematized, coded visuals
