Some nice further discussion in the comments section of Tom Moody’s post about my Wireframe Series, and I’m glad for the crit – some positive, some negative, all useful for when I implement the next iteration (hopefully in Joburg in September). I’m even more grateful for his second post, a point by point comparison to Stephen Hendee (image: The Eye, New Britain Museum, New Britain, CT, USA, 2005):
-specifically evokes “wireframe” computer model (or “invokes” in the case of Stern, who uses the word in his title)
-reproduces wireframe outlines as an actual object
-“problematizes” computer drawing with surrealist invention, deformation
-use of materials such as tape and foamcor (Hendee) and rope (Stern) suggests folk-like or cargo-cult-like reification or fetishization of high technology
-inverts the idea of a computer as effortless and airy through the conspicuous employment of hand labor
I think that these, coupled with his point of it being “activated through its contact with people” (both the performers/volunteers, and the public) are where I should re-double my efforts.
