The
organizers have kept this year's conference small again so
that "only" about 160 participants got a little lost between
the lecture halls spread across the Brown campus. But due to
the long ways between venues and lack of a central meeting
place, the intimate yet intense atmosphere of e.g. last
year's DAC at the University of Bergen, Norway, could not
arise. At a conference with parallel tracks, short ways and
a place to meet up between sessions, have a coffee and talk
about the presentations attended and those missed are
particularly important. Session hopping, too is a crucial
parameter. Both the possibility to sample talks from
different sessions and to hear others talk about what one
hasn't seen prevent participants from feeling they have been
able to see only half the conference. Also, continuing
discussions from the sessions becomes hard when everybody
has to rush off into different directions to catch the next
track. Happily, Brown campus offers a large enough selection
of cafes and diners so that there was always a place to meet
and talk. This way, DAC retained its networking and
contacting potential.
DAC 2001 seemed to be
missing a center - not only the venue, but the program as
well. Ted Nelson's polemically satiric opening keynote not
quite set interface and usability as a leitmotif: The
internet and (web-)applications - says Nelson - have been
devised by geeks - and geeks don't create useful interfaces.
His solution: structured data, loaded dynamically into
templates customized for specific users, including e.g.
semantic linking. According to Nelson, keeping content in
databases and presenting it in different interfaces for
different use(r)s will also be a way out of the
standard-wars of the interface-multis. Sadly, he did not
concede even implicitly that this concept looks quite like
XML - or a Nelson-standard based on XML. The theme of
"interface" was carried on into the first session: Susana
Pajares Tosca talked about common spatial metaphors for
navigation and presentation, Terry Harpold talked about the
interface as text.
In later sessions, Michael
Mateas treated intelligent agents and Frank Shipman
introduced Fantasy Sports as border-bending "real" and
virtual interfaces. N. Katherine Hayles as well as Madeleine
Sorapure addressed text, body and embodiment. All in all,
however, there was little news; discussions were
uncharacteristically reticent. Topics like "Image", "Body"
or "Art" as generic containers received standard treatment.
Among the few positive surprises was Jenny Sundèn's
"The Embodied Computer Code" about gender-attributions in
MOOs and the demystification of the web as ungendered third
space.
It seems to me that digital
art and culture are in need of a little innovative big bang.
Of course if makes sense - even in the fast-moving field of
multimedia - not to dismiss as obsolete texts from the
1990s. Few projects have been studied exhaustively and the
fact that Afternoon or Myst are almost taboo these days is
certainly not due to the presumably low quality of the
output of the past decade but rather to the fact that only
the most prominent specimen have received attention - and
then in excess. Still, the recipient of combinatory lyric of
historical games on historical consoles is haunted by a
strange desire for something brand new. Projects with an
attitude - like Afternoon or Myst in their
time.
Perhaps it is time for the
academic community to drop their distrust of industry. At
DAC 2001, one could indeed see projects with a commercial
background, like www.ottoandiris.com (intelligent agents in
a playful cartoon-environment). But productions like these
are expensive. Single authors today are hardly able to
develop multimedia projects on their own. In place of the
lonesome genius, teams of specialists are at work now, each
contributing their skills in text, image, sound or
programming. Such teams are to be found predominantly in
commercial contexts, because not alone the technological
development from pencil to digital workplace make multimedia
expensive. The romantic image of the poor poet is not valid
anymore. Maybe the big bang in digital art and culture can
come from the mix of scholarship and commerce.
DAC has been and still is an
important forum - not least to address the obvious dilemma
of digital art and culture. The committed group who met on
Friday morning in the "Town Meeting" to brainstorm about the
future of DAC came up with a number of ideas about how one
might continue and develop this conference with its own
individual character and emphasis on dialog: On the one
hand, there was an awareness that spatial proximity and
organized informal get-togethers are integral part of this
event. But there were also those who supported fewer or
shorter presentations and longer periods for discussion,
even less keynotes in order to retain a student-friendly
pricing or for the relocation from lecture-halls into rooms
with acoustics meant for discussions not one-way
presentations ... No final decisions were reached - the
future's wide open.
home