Questions for Yael Kanarek

Question for the class,

Her work is very impressive. I like the idea to tell the whole story via file folders. I did open the folders, read the letters and saw the photos. But the whole story is still kinda vague for me. When I was "playing the game", I got lost because of the "unstructured" stories. Is that what you meant before you made the project? Or does it have underlying meaning?

Question for Kanarek

The project has been running since 1995. What made it successful and go so long? What are the primary updates since then? Most of the them are changes related to content or technology?

Questions for Kanarek

For Kanarek:
"The World of Awe", as it has aged, has witnessed large changes and developments in web-based media technology, and so different parts of the site seem to rely on different technologies from different eras (i.e. Flash-based sections vs. text-based sections, 3-D rendered images of varying degrees of detail and sophistication, etc.). What do you think of the resulting somewhat fragmentary effect? Does it enrich the goals of the work? Work against them? How will the continuing evolution of web technologies affect the development of "The World of Awe"?

For the class:
"The World of Awe" bears some resemblance to "Myst" and similar Hypercard-esque games that were popular around the time of the project's inception. However, "Myst" and similar games, despite inviting the user to participate as a solitary explorer, nonetheless deliver goals and a storyline: puzzles get solved and unlock other puzzles, and so on, until the end of the game. To what extent does "The World of Awe" steer users in a particular direction? Are its non-directional elements satisfying? Intriguing? Engaging? How are linearity and non-linearity asserted and manipulated in the creation of the artwork's world?

Yael Kanarek

Question for class:

The following, from the NYT article, brings up an interesting question--

"There is a sense of nostalgia throughout ''World of Awe'' that is increasingly present among artists working with new technologies. A passion for the cutting edge is equaled, if not surpassed, by a fondness for chunky old computer consoles, awkward interfaces, even the uniform gray color of the screen. The digital age is beginning to develop its own art history -- artifacts that artists draw upon as readily as Michelangelo used classical sculpture or Picasso used African masks."

So what is the role of Old New Media? Technology which once was cutting-edge, but which now brings up associations with obsolescence, can serve different roles in New Media artworks. How have the various artists we've seen dealt with the concept of technological obsolescence? How does Yael deal with it, or doesn't she?

For Yael:

Similar question: what is the role of obsolete technology? How do you let it influence your work? Do you fetishize obsolete technology, or mourn it?

Question for Yael:

Why did you choose to make the story in World of Awe so unstructured? I like the idea of nonlinear stories, but I feel lost and overburdened when first approaching World of Awe. Without guideposts or a starting point, you put the burden of orientation on the user. Is this intentional? I feel that in some ways it acts as a fence that keeps users away. A good starting point or trailer would help orient the user and actually pull the user into the story, not keep them sitting on the edge with a feelings of frustration or apathy.

Question for Class:

A lot of people criticized this work because the display and the technology used for it was "so 90's." Is this an overly harsh criticism of her work? Is New Media art judged solely on its application of state of the art technology? If so, then why did we discuss Bill Fontana? World of Awe is presenting a story, albeit in a medium that is different from the conventional book. Shouldn't we also look at the story and critique it on its literary and artistic merits rather than its technology?

Re: Yael Kanarek

Question for Yael:

Do you examine the World of Awe web server logs? Why or why not? If you do, what do you learn from them and how does this influence your work?

Question for the class:

I want to pick up on Aylin's comments about the NYT article mentioning a WOA book, CD, DVD, and downloadable game. This is appropriation of a strategy developed by the entertainment industry (see Henry Jenkins on Transmedia Storytelling). What does it mean for artists to appropriate creative strategies like this from contemporary commercial media? Warhol could appropriate techniques and imagery from commercial advertising to make things that transcended their sources, but can an artist like Kanarek really create a world that won't look sadly insignificant next to The Matrix or LOTR? Have we reached the point where it no longer makes sense for single artists or small groups of artists to try to appropriate these techniques?

Questions for Kanarek from Serhat

Question for the class,

At first I want to say that I am very impressed with her work and her intelligence. By having a website rather than writing a book she has the opportunity to renew her articles and add new ones everytime. I think her primary purpose is make people feel like the traveler while they are visiting her website, that's why there is a continuous sound of wind, the age, sex or other information about the traveler doesn't mentioned enywhere in the website, that's why there is nobody in most of the scenes e.g. in front of the camp fire. You cannot see the traveler near the fire you are the only one who is sitting in front of the fire, and by clicking on the fire you can learn what she had ate that time. And also there are some secret links on the images, e.g. the pearl on the left bottom corner of the camp fire image. By exploring the secret messages like this you become very curious and try to find others, that makes the story like a game for you.

Question for Kanarek

The technology you used on your website is not new, I think you can make your site more attractive and reach more people by using new technology. Are you working on this or are you happy with your website.

questions for Kanarek from Steph

Question for the class:
In our discussion last week, some considered Kanarek’s work unsuccessful in its inability to take users out of their “real” experience and immerse them in a “virtual” one (apologies if not everyone agrees with my word choice; you recall the conversation). But, I interpreted her work as deliberately situating itself at the interface between real and virtual – the soft wind of World of Awe sounding like the static hum of a computer of a computer; the GUI mirroring the traveler’s laptop screen while itself sitting on the users’ laptop screen (or computer screen). In the New York Times article, Kanarek remarks that 'each element has the responsibility of extending this world.' What does this mean? Does it suggest that she’s interested in exploring the real-virtual interface, and not necessarily in suspension of disbelief/immersion? (Whether or not this is her intention doesn’t speak to whether or not her work is successful, but I did want to raise this question because it implicates how we critique her work.)

Questions for Kanarek:
--Same question as above but tempered: what is your intention for user experience in World of Awe? Specifically, is it to fully immerse users in-world, to explore the real-virtual interface, or otherwise?
--It appears that your original intention for World of Awe’s GUI was that it be transparent by being utilitarian – by being standard-looking, it would become invisible and better facilitate the unexpected. As you realized, though, the GUI became a very apparent part of the work. How did this shift change your approach to GUI design? Did you change the GUI after you realized it wasn’t (or couldn’t be?) transparent?
--How has World of Awe changed since 1995? Have you stored ‘versions’ of it such that it would be possible to travel through time through World of Awe?
--Related, in the New York Times article, you say you envision a “lifelong adventure” for World of Awe. Can you please elaborate? How do you envision World of Awe changing through time? Do you envision it merging with, acquiring, or being acquired by other virtual worlds; becoming interoperable with other virtual worlds; converging with other media?
--Speaking of change, two pillars of Web 2.0 are user-created content and user-to-user interaction. From what I understand, World of Awe lacks both – the content is pre-existing and users interact with the world but not each other. Are you planning to incorporate elements of user-creation and user-interaction into World of Awe, or is your intention for the world best fulfilled as is?
--You note that in creating an alternate world, you needed to elaborate a worldview. In this sense, world-making presents itself as a potentially enlightening activity (and is already being used for educational purposes) – at the most basic level, for building/identifying personal values. Can you discuss your process in designing World of Awe, and how world-making may be applicable to other purposes?

Yael Kanarek

Question to Yael:
Looking at the world of awe, I was intrigued with the fact that this project has been running since 1995. What I would like to ask her is about the process of evolution of this project from its inception in 1995 to the present i.e. 2007. Has the technological innovation, development of the software as well as the artist herself, affected the development of the project? If so in what way? Is there a way one can trace this development?

Question to Class:
In the rhizome article she mentions that she prefers that the visitors read the pages from beginning to end. Why would such a linear progression be important? Cause in the New York times article she mentions that it is actually a quest and there something simple about it. I feel there is some amount of contradiction here between the concept of the project which begins with the simple narrative of the goal and path finding which almost is never linear and the way the artist would like the visitors to experience the project.

Kanarek

Question for Kanarek:
I would like Kanarek to expand on her thoughts of how she views a plot. In a traditional plot, like in a movie all forms of media like sound, visual inputs etc. are combined together to draw the viewer in to the plot. However Yael in her website splits all of such inputs into distinct parts. I would like to know her views as to why she chooses to do so. Is it a limitation of the web format that she chooses or are is it that each of them are chosen to tell a story independent of the other.

Question for class:

Considering that we all are in some ways interested in the project of new media, given the same content and with the Internet as the place where the product would be showcased, how would each of one us choose to present the same content? Would it be drastically different from what Yael has chosen to do? Does the web in any way limit what can be expressed, considering bandwidth limitations, necessity to reach maximum number of people, etc.?

Yael Kanarek Qs

Yael Q:
A 2004 NYT article we read referred to your “World of Awe” project as “A Video Game With Awe as Its Quest.” Do you agree with this characterization of your work? If so, then how do you see “World of Awe” as a game? And how is it unlike a game (popular notions of games or otherwise)?

Class Q:

This question concerns video games, technology, and fictional worlds.

It isn’t hard to find old videos on YouTube that showcase, for instance, some early tech demos for the upcoming Nintendo “Ultra” 64—these videos were presented and (I think) enjoyed because of the newness of their images. Anxious Nintendo fans drooled over these images (seen in magazines, on television, in mailed videotapes, etc.), but what was on display wasn’t games; rather, it was technology for technology’s sake. The images were new in the domain of popular home console video games, and this cast a spell on audiences, generated a sort of excitement at the possibilities present in those images. Today, watching such videos on YouTube, something other than excitement is stirred up (at least in me). Aside from historical curiosity (or a penchant for the irony in the grand claims of the talking heads), the tech demos in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKlbx5niBu8 dating from 1995) don’t themselves arouse much excitement, even if the games and system they predate still can, today, despite vast technological advances made over the past decade in computer gaming (see, for example, Nintendo Wii’s virtual console sales).

My question is, first of all, has Yael Kanarek’s attention to technology in “World of Awe” undercut the apparent desire to immerse visitors in the website? In the NYT article, the first line reads “you enter ‘World of Awe’ by clicking on a clear capsule of rainbow-colored candy sprinkles.” In truth, if a visitor can even tell that the image is supposed to be a capsule of sprinkles, then disbelief will hardly be suspended further than “Let’s click that poor image of a sprinkle-colored pill.” The rest of the website never succeeds in sucking this viewer “into another world,” and I find it difficult to play along with the fantasy of the found laptop—and I am almost always a fairly easy sell, finding it easy to be pulled into very old (technologically speaking) games, if there is something making it worth “entering” this other world. However, if immersiveness or “awe” is the goal of the game, of the technology-driven visual experience, then are there special limitations? What kind of awe can the project hope to produce in a world so much more awe-inspiring at every turn? If the work must be read differently (against the awe) to be enjoyed and learned from, what does that say about the role technology plays in facilitating our spectatorial entry into virtual worlds? Are our trips bound to certain times? If we went there in 1998, and loved it, then can we go back today? Do these works need to be experienced when they are on a technological vanguard to be really felt? How should we read technology-based work that once did things it no longer can do to audiences? Can we see these works with the fair and honest (“virginal”) eyes we would require to really enter a space of awe? I argue that no, we cannot—and I wonder what that means for how “World of Awe” is talked about in, for instance, the articles we read for Kanarek.

Questions for Yael

Questions for Yael:

Parts of the AWE feel as though they have a post-apocalyptic feel to them (the makeshift nature of the laptop, the scavenged software, the empty landscapes, etc.) In some ways this seems quite prescient of the dot-com bubble in 2000, but in 1995 (with the Netscape IPO) things seemed to be looking up. I wonder if you could comment on the inspiration for this both pre-2000 and how it has informed the work post 2000 (or post 9/11 for that matter).

Question for the Class:

Kanarek's work brings up an interesting question regarding New Media and commerce (I think I'm channeling my inner Lovink right now). If you click on the link for 'Collectors' on her website it takes you to a gallery where you can purchase (or inquire about purchasing) installation and sculpture work of a decidedly more traditional nature. Given that it would be tough to commercialize any part of the world of awe, and given that artists need to eat, has it become simply an advertisement for her other work?

Interfaces to Awe

It seems like one of the aspects of World of Awe that we discussed the most the last time around was the interface. Both the interface to the story (the laptop and journal) and the interface of the website that "contains" the story of the world.

My question to Yael is this: if you were starting over right now, how would you change the experience of people coming to the The World of Awe website (if at all), and how would you change the interface to the laptop (again, if at all)? You said in an interview: "I think of an application as a private environment to execute ideas. Working in an application is usually a solitary experience and therefore seemed appropriate for a journal containing the particular narrative I have been developing." With the development of new social ways of using applications on the desktop and on the web, do you still adhere to these same design principles?

My question to the class: The idea of the "outdated" interface doesn't really bother me that much. I like the idea of a mysterious laptop that had to be reassembled using old and new technologies (or something like that...). What bothers me a bit more is that there have been a lot of changes to the ways in which people use computers and the internet over the past 10 years (and a lot of new people using computers and using the web, in a variety of configurations). My sense is that very few of these changes made it into the world, though, I can't really tell because a) it's not transparent to me what the changes over time were and b) I couldn't maintain enough interest to use the site for very long. Of course, Yael isn't "obligated" to do anything that she doesn't want to do with her art. But, what could she have done to make the project a bit more successful over the past ten years? What would make the project feel compelling now?

Questions for Yael Kanarek

For Kanarek:

You've been working on World of Awe since 1995. That seems like a significant amount of time for such a project to endure. In what ways has World of Awe changed since then (i.e. merely addition of content - "chapters"?) and how have you, as an artist, grown or changed since then?

More specifically, for those of us who have only just experienced World of Awe, we see it at a specific point in time (October 2007), if we had been a part of the world when it first started would we have seen your growth as an artist reflected through it?

Also, how do you imagine World of Awe will be in another 10 years?

For the Class:

In the New York Times article we read, it explains how, in addition to further development of the hypertext World of Awe, a book, CD, and DVD are in the works. Also, in the Rhizome interview Kanarek talks about another environment built on a game engine that will end up being a downloadable application.

Kanarek claims that all of these additional items are not merely "props" nor just "a translation," but instead "each element has the responsibility of extending [her] world."

Do you feel all of these additional pieces will extend the World of Awe and possibly help us, as viewers, feel more drawn in and hooked or do you feel they will only isolate and distance us more by being so fragmented across mediums?

Yael Kanarek

I would like to hear more from Kanarek about the process of creating the stories on her site and her exhibition pieces. I just found out about the Lost Love project (http://lostlove.robot138.com/index2.html#), where the public can submit their own "lost love stories." I wonder if Kanarek is approached by the public with story ideas, images, sounds, etc, and if she incorporates those.
As for the class discussion, I was wondering what people think about the more "traditional" media used for her gallery pieces. How are we supposed to exhibit and experience Internet art in a gallery? Would it be enough to put a computer with Internet access in a gallery and let the visitor explore a website? Do we have to stay in the realm of technology, with maybe prints of screen shots, or projections of flash movies and sound from the website playing in the background? How should a museum or gallery, and also an artist, tackle this question?
Dannie