Interactive artwork discussed; the schematic cube

A gallery space, the picture appears before the spectator who digests its content and makes a series of judgements that determine their understanding of said picture. All well and good, if we were to delve further into this process of looking, no doubt we would become bogged down in a vast history of literature. To simplify the process would be to draw upon a linerarity of looking, by this I mean a series of interlinked theories, denoting at least a refutation of one mode or another. Certain key players would crop up, Kant undoubtedly, Hegel probably, Hume, Baumgarten, Marx maybe. From here, certain strands would appear, paths of theoretical interpretations, a narrowing of the field would allow us to align our original observations with a instituted reading of 'looking'. Still all well and good, save for a rather traditional concern that is often left out of the art of looking. The reader. Too often asking the simple question, 'why?' invokes a response that disregards the. This common approach to aesthetic theory I argue is down to a post-modern reading of the modernists. Take Atonal music, often cited as a rejection of the audience. This claim is far to general, 'the audience' does not mean 'every person with two ears' but a social class, it is a reaction to the privelllege system in place in classical music. Instead of creating a critical foundation the reader sees 'the audience' and automatically responds to this comment as would the infant since they are not given the measuring tools required for critical debate.

I have not given an account of my title - 'Interactive artwork discussed; the schematic cube' - and there is good reason for this. I am quite certain that I am adding to the confusion. As critical discourse pulls ever closer towards a scientific reading of social interaction we find ourselves picking through Badiou's equations, Derrrida's intelligence or Baudrillards tragi-comedy, creative action becomes more a competition of memory than a co-operation of useful thought.

I will make this analogy as foolish as I can, it should not erquire re-reading and is naturally open to forgetfulness.

The schematic cube:

Imagine the artwork is a three dimensional cube, every artwork ever made is, in essence based on and can be reduced to this model. This includes everything from the Aboriginal cave paintings to Joyce's Ulysses. Just as before the spectator stands before the artwork and digests it by whatever means and or mode is necessary. We notice a few things; firstly, they can only ever see three sides at once, three are always obscured. The spectator may walk around the cube, but they will only ever have up to three sides in plain view. Initially I said they may notice a few other things, but whatever these may be, they can be refuted by the first point.

The analogy is obvious. The spectator knows they are looking at a cube - that must have six sides for them to be looking at a cube - but can only ever see three of those sides. If we look at each side as a perspective, opinoin, theory, etc... we quickly get to the root of what I am trying to say. There is only ever a number of ways one person can look at an artwork but this does not mean taht they are the only ways, infact there must be other sides that I cannot see but still know to be present. A more simply stand a person facing every side of a cube, they may be able to see the expression of a number of other individuals facing the cube, but not every.

Just quickly, I am not trying to get into an argument with Descarte, I do hold that the cube analogy is proof that the sceptic may be silenced. I do not, however, hold with the current picture or problems of constructing the mind - or mind body - puzzle. I go so far as to say that the mind is a philosophers semantic, an elaborate joke, and a critical puzzle may be worked through quite justly using thought alone - without having to divulge the minds whereabouts.

The interactive artwork needs progressing somewhat, at present it exists conceptually, therefore it is untenable. Janet cardiff has got closest to anything we may conceive a useful illustration.

Myself and Peter Jaques have a model of the interactive artwork based on the camera obscura. We take a painting, set it opposite the camera obscura against the wall in three dimension. The three dimension effect is created by disecting the painting in relation to its own treatment of the third dimension. On top of the camera obscura there is a lens which reflects the three dimensional image onto a mirror that in turn turns itself onto a table inside the camera obscura. Attached to the table is a focussing wheel that allows the spectator to pull focus on particular parts of the painting opposite the camera obscura.

This rendition of the artwork allows the spectator to purvey the act of looking and take part in each rendition of the schematic cube. What is missing from this of course is a perfect display of the artworks consciousness.