Peter Elst

Peter, these are pretty much my own feelings as well, and along the lines of what I heard from most others who received the scolding.

My take on it at the end of this post:

http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=1552

Exact same feeling for me (you know that)… I tried to express in shorter words the same thing in my own FOTB review. Nice post !

hey peter

i feel very much that jonathan had some good points to make. i’ve left a longer comment on keith’s blog so i won’t repeat myself here as he’s helpfully provided a link to his post. but in short (REAL short) i think jonathan’s problem was one of delivery rather than content: what he was saying had a lot of truth to is but the way he was saying it rather soured the content. which is a shame, because his comments will just be dismissed now rather than accepted as a valid and worthwhile contribution to the ongoing debate, which they most certainly are.

i will repeat one thing i left on keith’s blog. this quote from a friend and colleague of mine on the controversy:

“…It wasn’t the questioning the message that was the problem, it was the “How DARE he say our works aren’t masterpieces” reaction that was, um, questionable…”

I didn’t hear anyone defending their “masterpieces”. Mostly I heard people defending their tinkering and experimenting and tool making. Many references to Leonardo being a tinkerer and experimenter.

ok good, it does seem that when we start examining more closely what we actually feel about jonathan’s presentation that we agree much more on its details than it at first seems and that the absurdly simplistic attempt belief that one should either be in favour of or against jonathan just don’t even begin to hold water.

that said, i do find myself firmly in the - it seems - minority camp of finding jonathan’s talk upbeat and agreeing largely with what he had to say. i’m off out now so don’t have time to say much more tonight but in the light of the amount of negativity beginning to surface in the wake of jonathan’s session, i’ll definitely be composing a counter-argument tomorrow morning.

I found his comments arrogant and insulting. Unfortunately, like 99.99% of working Flex/Flash developers I am driven by my clients requests and my own financial requirements. I’d love to be able to ‘get out’ more to indulge myself in my Moleskin but unlike Mr. Harris I have to spend the majority of my time working on mundane marketing projects for the masses and what little time I do have I spend ‘tinkering’ and ‘experimenting’ so that maybe, just maybe I can inject just a little bit of uniqueness into my work that’ll make it stand out from the rest of the ‘masterpieces’ out there. I was astounded that he would belittle all these hard-working creative souls at the end of what had been a very upbeat, positive, influential conference and it has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Feel the same way Peter. This is what really annoys me about some “artists”. First of all, I’m sick of this bash on commercial work. Just because you get paid for it, doesn’t necessarily make it less artistic. Frankly some of the best stuff I saw from guys like James Patterson was their commercial work.

Some of these guys think they can say whatever they want and then if you take issue with it they just respond, “well I got a reaction out of you, so I achieved my goal.” True, but I could go and kick someone in the balls. It would sure get a reaction out them so I guess that would be art too.

@Lee LOL…

Just because he went whale hunting doesn’t make him an ambassador of Art..

Debating whether to post this:

http://natzke.com/fotb08.txt

(I feel this is only playing into his intent, but it is obvious that there were a great number of people who were upset by his remarks)

I’m guessing Jonathan thinks his own work is a masterpiece and makes people cry etc etc. You think he’s a bit full of himself? http://www.number27.org/morebio.html#photographs

I’ve known Jonathan and his work for a while and I think some of you are missing some important facts.

Although he does and showed a lot of “artistic” work (as you have described above, Lee), he’s also done his fair share of commercial work, so he’s not speaking from some kind of protected artist’s cocoon. Nor has he ever argued that experimentation isn’t important – and he didn’t say that at FOTB either, he said that there is too much focus on that to the detriment of ideas. That’s true and the truth hurts. But it’s true of almost all new and emerging technologies at the moment, not just Flash, so don’t take it too personally.

There is enormous pressure on designers and developers to keep up to date, to use the latest and greatest, both from clients and companies like Adobe. It’s very easy to fall back on glossy technique but stale ideas - everyone succumbs to that from time to time in the face of impossible deadlines and/or budgets.

I took away from it that it’s important to get out from behind the computer and remember what the world is about. I don’t think that’s particularly controversial.

I am really enjoying reading all the commentary here.

Peter, maybe, I interviewed him afterwards for an article for Creative Review I’m writing and so I got the benefit of an expanded version and explanation plus I know his background and other work.

To me the fact that it caused such a controversy points to the likelihood that what he had to say had a great deal of truth in it. Most people get pissed off about being shown the elephant in the room. On the other hand, people get pissed off if they feel misrepresented and the tone of a lot of blog posts and comments is “he’s not one of our community” and/or “who’s this artist guy telling us hard working commercial folk what to do?”.

Neither is true - he’s been working in interactive media for as long or longer than many in the Flash community as well as commercially (he was, until a short while ago, the Design Director at DayLife. Perhaps he should have talked more about that so that people understood where he was coming from more.

The whole arrogance accusation is tricky. He’s made some great work - some of my favourite interactive work ever, and I’ve been in the industry for about 15 years and seen a lot. It’s not like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If his own work was lame, or even mediocre, I think I’d feel the same sense of being talked down to. But whatever your feelings about the arrogance or not, there is some good advice in his talk that would be foolish to dismiss if you didn’t like the style of the presenter. Personally I find Josh Davies way over-rated and arrogant, but I still take away something from his presentations, so maybe it’s just different strokes for different folks.

I think Erik’s text (which I think he should post) is a much more considered response than many of the posts and comments, especially as he is also in that artist/designer hybrid track.

The reason why I feel there is quite a lot of truth in what Jonathan had to say rather than the way he said it is because I really haven’t seen a lot of new ideas over the last few years. I’ve seen the Flash community ‘get pixels’ and repeat a whole load of stuff that’s been done before. Some of that’s because of a lack of knowledge of the pre-web history of interactive media (that’s a practical thing - half the old stuff doesn’t run on anything anymore) and some of it is because of the history – most tools are written in similar ways and playing with them often yields similar results. So there’s a lot of re-invention of the wheel that has gone on, particularly with Flash now that it has come of age as a tool. That’s okay – everything has to go through that stage, but what now? Will people do 3D stuff with Papervision that games developers already did 10 years ago? Why? What could we be doing that is different given that Flash is basically an open-entry platform unlike the Playstation 1? It is important to get past the bells and whistles of being excited about just being able to do something at last to actually thinking about what this new(ish) medium and these tools can offer. For me that’s the part that rang true in Harris’s talk. I’m still waiting to see a piece of work that is a real paradigm shift and I haven’t yet (including his work). I do, however, believe that it comes through a combination of tinkering and playing with the tools as well as ideas, because they feed into each other and eventually lead to something new.

After noticing all the hubbub my talk seems to have stirred up, I put together my own thoughts, in my own words, to help clarify what I was trying to say.

I realize that for many people, the tone of my presentation interfered with the message, which is a shame, but one for which I have only myself to blame. The tone probably could have been better, but I believe the message is important, regardless of how it was delivered.

Anyway, this page tries to sort that out.

You may or may not find it interesting.

In any case, thanks for all this hearty discussion.

If we need that frame of reference of his prior work to better understand his remarks perhaps he should have made that more clear in his presentation.

That’s possibly true, but it also proves the point too if that frame of reference doesn’t already exist in the Flash community. I think there is often (not always) a dearth of knowledge of both design and interactive media history in much of the work that I see. You have to know what’s gone before in order to expand new areas.

I think the two questions that really need to be answered are whether the current Flash community feels it’s worth exploring new territory and, if so, what that might be. But there has to be something beyond the amazement that it’s now possible to do X, Y or Z in Flash, where X, Y and Z are things that have been created successfully elsewhere. I like Erik, respect his work and he’s far more able than me in Flash, that’s for sure. But is he doing anything beyond what Josh Davis did? Not really. Is Josh doing something more than Jackson Pollack did? Not even close (Pollack had a lot more going on behind his work). But they are both doing work that inspires and they’ve both found their own way there, which is great for them.

Is being able to make an accurate 3D driving game in Flash amazing? Yes and Carlos is unbelievable in that. Is it something we haven’t seen before? No. You could say the same with Andre’s Hobnox or Mario’s Photoshop/Peacock work. It’s all incredible that it can be done in Flash, but what does it change or bring to the medium by doing it? Is using a version of Photoshop in Flash better/worse/the same as using Photoshop? Why wouldn’t I use Reason instead of Hobnox? Don’t get me wrong, I admire all of those projects, but the list goes on of similar questions.

We Feel Fine, for example, was something that couldn’t have been done in any medium, but the technology was largely irrelevant to what it was doing, apart from the underlying technology of the blogosphere from which it drew.

It seems to me that these are the questions that need to be asked and answered. I have my own answers to these, but as a community they need to be raised. If those issues and trends aren’t challenged, Flash will end up in the same place that those people exploring virtual reality systems are – novel technical creations without much purpose and without much in the way of engaging ideas.

I felt that was what Jonathan was doing, albeit in a way that rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way.

Aside from the feeling of being spoken down to or the sense of arrogance, what is it that riles people about the content of what he had to say? I think a lot of the angry comments are avoiding that issue aren’t they?

I was left with “1 ballon” (about Flash) after JH’s last 10 minutes … but after reading his official response, as well as comentary here and elsewhere from others … not to mention speaking with fellow Flashers … I’m back to having “9 ballons” … this time with many, many, wishes.

i’m glad that andy and jonathan himself have stopped by here to defend jonathan. i got up this morning with the intention of writing a blog post to act as a counterbalance to all the negativity surrounding jonathan’s talk as i found the content, if perhaps not the delivery, of the talk really interesting.

anyway, at about 5pm GMT i finished the post and hit ‘publish’ only to discover that jonathan had himself summed up what [i think] i was also trying to say only in a more concise and beautiful way, damn!

and also that everyone is a bit sick of the whole topic by now too, doubledamn!!

still, the post took a while and its done now so i might as well add it to the defences of jonathan here, as they are still heavily outweighed by the attacks:

http://richtextformat.net/blog/?p=211

This is such a riveting read, I’m loving all the points made.
The community is ALIVE and all fired up. It’s orsum \m/

I think all these points and perspectives are valid, no one is wrong. It depends on your personal situations and freedom / limitations.
It’s all subjective. Its great that Jonathan responded.
I could be taking the message delivered way out of context as Jonathan’s work is undoubtedly of high quality

I’m not really in any position to add anything as I am sans-masterpiece
but I will :]
I would like to add to Keith’s point about Leonardo being a tinkerer and experimenter (I hope I’m correct in assuming he meant Da Vinci).

My analogy would be music related and to the recording techniques used by none other than The Beatles… I think we all need to do some commercial work & experimentation and tinkering. I think it’s important to have “pop songs” like “I wanna hold your hand” before you can get to the stage of a Revolver or Sargent Peppers…I hope that makes sense, my point would be, it actually takes, in many cases, a very LARGE amount of tinkering before you can develop the skills / confidence to build any masterpiece.

Not to focus to much on the word masterpiece but i mean ..what is that
“his / her finest work” ? My 4 month old daughter today did a masterpiece.
It was the finest work of her life (to date). Many masterpieces were not considered that at the time they were created.

Personally, and as many others it seems, I can see both sides of the coin,
however I would suggest that next time Jonathan should have Andy with him on stage, as to put a more “cheerful spin” on the delivery

Question is …will Jonathan’s work make people laugh and cry in 25 years?
I know I will be laughing (probably with embarrassment) at my work in 25 years LOL

long live the Tinkerers !!

(I’m of to read Erik’s text)

I wrote this comment before Jonathan posted his reply here, but I’d still like to post it. (For some reason it didn’t submit.) While I wasn’t at FOTB this year and have only heard of Harris’ past presentations, it seems to be that his biggest misstep was not clarifying his audience. From the slides that I’ve seen of his presentation, it doesn’t sound like he was addressing all Flash work out there–obviously, there should be a perception of commercial work vs. personal/artistic work. There have always been artists who do commercial work and work for themselves (since my degree is in Photographic Arts, I can only recall art history related to photography, and Garry Winogrand and Richard Avedon come to mind), and the two aspects of one’s career rarely meet.

I applaud Jonathan for taking this much needed step in addressing the Flash crowd. To be honest, I used to feel a bit hostile about what Flash designers would present under the auspices of art (whether they called it art or not), but I’ve come to the conclusion that any inspiration is a good thing and people who are engaged in their craft eventually learn the history (or histories) that are relevant to what they’re doing. Any hostility–like that which some seemed to have perceived coming from Mr. Harris–usually ends up working against the message of a presentation and can be so off-putting that people act on the defensive.

I’m waiting for the next step in creative exploration with Flash (or any other interactive media). We’ve been hanging out in the current zone way too long. I don’t know if I should call myself a pretenious postmodern amateur, but I want to see something expressed in a body of work that’s delivering a message. A quick example that comes to mind is an art installation I saw at SIGGRAPH a few years ago, where the artist created a virtual waterfall under which visitors could stand and let the computer-generated projector of water flow over their bodies. If the artist hadn’t accompanied the experience with his/her artist statement, it would have just been a kewl use of technology. But the artist statement indicated the intentions of the piece–that water will one day become such a limited resource that we won’t be able to splash around in water, have a shower, etc. We’ll only be able to enjoy it virtually. That’s what I’m waiting for. More stuff like that.

Great to see some strong debates! Btw, I wasn’t at FOTB because, as maybe Johnatan, I try not to be restricted to any particular technology or tool. Since I wasn’t there I cannot criticize nor Johantan nor you but the message Jonathan wanted to send is pretty familiar to me, so I wanted to give my 2 cents. I respect Jonathan for his work, but my biggest concern is why he wanted to send that message at FOTB. Most of the people who attend events like FOTB are in general people who cannot care less than sending any message from their learning experiments a part helping someone else on facing technical issues. They are developers that live delivering applications, not art pieces. It is true, the web is full of tinkers that define themselves as artists because they can do some generative or geeky stuff (someone with Flash someone with Processing) and this might hurt but I wouldn’t do any crusade about this, especially in an event like FOTB! So, despite I like debates, I think this all thing is pretty ridiculous.

I wasn’t there but I do think it’s worth defining “art”. I always thought it was only art if it had a message. “experimental art” or “generative art” are sort of oxymorons. And “artistic commercial work”… in fact, many would argue commercial artists aren’t really artists either. But this all comes down to mincing words.

Interestingly, that violin dude at Flashfoward kind of made the same point when he asked “what are you all doing to make a difference?” (to which I think most people were like “wha?”)

You can be an artist or not an artist regardless of your medium. I do love the “relevant in 25 years” thing. First of all, I doubt very much any of us are doing a ton of stuff that lives that long–things change faster now than they did in the past. Plus… like all history, you can’t make the judgment of whether something is relevant until long after the fact.

Finally, whether you call it art or not, you can most definitely inject your creativity into any kind of work–client driven or not. Anything can be done creatively.

Personally I disagree with the whole “art has to have a message” viewpoint. Or the idea that art has to attempt to make some change in society or something. I could point to any number of masterpieces that don’t have any “message” and don’t do anything to better society. But then we are getting into the question of what is art, which is about as fruitful as arguing over religion or politics. I, for one, am going to go on doing what I’m doing because I really, really, really enjoy doing it, and other people seem to enjoy looking at it and learning from it. There’s no message in it for the most part. It probably won’t make anyone cry. It will most likely be long forgotten in 25 years. And I can totally live with that.

@Christian and @Phillip - I posted the audio of the talk with my response to much of the commentary here, if you want to hear what he had to say.

With regards to generative art - it’s got a long history even before computers came on the scene. Concrete artists like Richard Paul Lohse used systematic rules to govern their paintings. In that sense the art was in the rules and the actual painting part was what the computer now does.

You’ll never define art in either direction (i.e., it “is art” or “it isn’t”) by the form, nor by whether it carries a message or not. Art is whatever someone decides to frame and present as art. Keith, if you took your work and put it in an arts context, meaning would be found whether you intended it or not.

Personally I think art should do two things: It should help you see the world differently than from your own point of view and it should move you emotionally in some way, even if it’s just “I like the look of that aesthetically”. The problem with dismissing what Jonathan had to say as “that’s art, I do commercial work” is that the commercial work should do those two things too - show another point of view and move people. An ad or marketing campaign or a piece of design work should be doing something that makes you take notice on a deeper level. Design has enormous power to change the way we both see and interact with the world – finding at least one small part in any job that you can make personal, make art (in whatever role you are in - it could be a stunning spreadsheet), is important for our sanity and it produces great work as opposed to accomplished, good work. I think Chris Orwig probably summed that up best in hist talk.

Thanks a lot Andy for the mp3! It sounded as an interesting session. I still believe Jonathan picked the wrong audience to send that message to and that he could have been said it with much more touch (talking about those rules only as the ones he follows intstead of the ones the flash community should follow too), but of course, if you want to be an artist, those rules can be helpful.

Christian - no problem. My feeling is that the commotion it has stirred up suggests it was exactly the audience to say this to. Ideally these questions would already be being asked within the Flash community, but they’re not. I see a lot of naked emperors complaining about being cold right now…

I wasn’t there, so all I’m getting is the transcript, but I agree completely with pretty much everything Harris stated.

The natzkes and davises of the world, looked at objectively, are perhaps craftsmen who make pretty toys. I’ve worked with both and was not particularly impressed that they brought any great sense of depth to the projects.

True art, to my mind and what Jonathan said, connects on a far deeper level. Maybe you think the guy sounds arrogant; I can’t comment. But I will say that most of the great artists through history have been arrogant also.

yes… I’ve been lurking… and I wasn’t there… but I leave my 2 cents.

1.

Up until the past 10 years or so… work had to go through a huge process. It had to be reviewed… labeled… touted as good… marketable/sellable… or nobody ever saw it. Look at the medium of books, art, design, film, etc.

The great thing about the internet was we could circumvent this process… anything could be published.

the good, the bad, the ugly.

which is why environments like youtube and myspace are so successful.

my problem with with Mr. Harris’s comments is that… TOO ME… he presents his ideal as law… that it should be something that we should all strive for and aspire to become… and I simply do not agree… Praystation and Once-upon-a-Forest, my own personal projects, have simply been about the absence of idea… and I think that’s ok. the internet is what you make it and should be a place where you express yourself, devoid of anyone telling you what the internet or your work should be or strive to become.

Fuck Mr. Harris and Fuck Mr. Davis - opinions are like assholes… at the end of the day you should make things you’re proud of - and accolades from others is just icing on the cake.

–

2.

go to a museum.

look at the work in those museums.

a majority of the work that sits in those museums… is in there simply because it’s FUCKING OLD.

religious and political propaganda.

they’re just really old pretty fucking paintings that didn’t get destroyed in… insert war here.

and when I leave… I’m inspired and moved by the painting itself. the color, the texture, the balance, the precision, blah blah blah… The Coronation of Napoleon by Louis David is one of my favorite paintings… I’m awe-struct by it’s size, detail, color, complexity, etc…

I’m not moved… nor am I even aware… of the story it tells… it’s the Coronation of Napoleon… it’s pretty… it’s old.

end of story.

–

I’m going to get back to making things… whether anybody likes what I do or not.

// Joshua Davis

I think there are so many points being missed here and its only reinforcing the message somewhat.

Everyone labels everything, it’s the way we organise ourselves, our thoughts, our relationships, the world around us. Peter, you labelled the FOTB audience, for example, as Flash developers, but the audience was broader than that - there were producers, writers, journalists, artists, musicians, designers, project managers, project managers, etc., etc. also there. They’re all labels.

Interactive media - to use the broadest terms possible within this area - suffer from a lack of history. It’s a young form - videogames go back furthest, to the 60s at best - so it is to be expected. People are still finding their way, finding out what works and what doesn’t, what is engaging what isn’t. If you compare it to something like storytelling, which has been around probably as long as we could talk, if not longer, you see its lack of structure and history. There are clear ways – rules, checklists, approaches – to structure a story to make it engaging that have been developed through thousands of years of experience. You don’t have to follow them, of course, and real mastery often twists them into something new, but for every newly developed genre there are thousands of crap an extremely dull student films and stories that failed to engage in the basic building blocks of story-telling. The language of interactivity is still wide open for exploration and development and some stabs at giving direction or defining some principles and approaches are useful, even if only to highlight disagreement. But we really are a long way off from any masterpieces or, rather, any mastery of that language. We are hardly at the stage of being able to form full sentences.

Who defines what art is or who has the right to? Without wanting to fall into a relativist black hole here, anyone can. Duchamp and Warhol, to name just two, showed the world that. If you say what you make is art, especially if you decide to put it into a traditional art context such as a gallery or museum (and Josh has had his work in plenty – so I find his second point there somewhat disingenuous), then it is art. But with that comes the price tag that what you are holding up to be art will be judged against everything else that is considered art or ever has been. That’s got nothing to do with “industrializing and de-humanizing the artistic experience”, nor with arrogance. It’s the same in any walk of life. And so it’s important to know your art, media and design history and understand where your work fits in to that bigger world, not just one community clustered around one specific software tool. Is that spinning 3D car anything new? No. Is it new and/or impressive because it’s been done in Flash (a clumsy animation tool that had some rudimentary scripting bolted onto it that has now developed into something so much more powerful)? Yes. But it’s important to know the difference isn’t it? Otherwise you’re just working in a vacuum.

It’s perfectly valid to argue the intention and idea behind your artistic work (and even “the absence of an idea” is an idea), but to say “I’m an artist” and when someone compares you to other artists then to say “Oh, but I’m that kind of artist, that’s not a fair comparison” is trying to have it both ways. If you say what you do is art, fine, but then you have to face the public reaction.

Much of what is put out there as Flash or generative art are interesting, useful and often exciting and engaging technical experiments. Some of those techniques might make it into a commercial or non-commercial project or develop into something more like fully-fledged artworks – Josh’s work is a good example. But to claim many of these are masterpieces in their own right or any more than technical experiments, comparable with trying out a new charcoal or etching technique, fails to see beyond the technique of the tools.

That’s not to say technical experimentation or knowledge of the tools aren’t important. They are and it’s the way we’ll come to understand these media forms more, but this current debate is, ultimately, a question of labels and context. Is it art? Is it tech? Is it design? And there’s a lack of that contextualisation going on and creative exploration is suffering because of it – it’s why there really hasn’t been anything paradigm-shifting for a long while coming out of the Flash community.

Labels and language (both words and an interactive ‘language’) are extremely important - it’s how I know the stick someone is holding is just a stick and not a weapon.

Andy, I don’t find my comments disingenuous at all… if anything it reinforces my comment that not all work has to adhere to some great heartfelt story to be “art”. My work included… I’ve shown my work in a ton of galleries and museums and believe me… I’m not story telling.

I’d like to think it’s “pretty”… and if anything… it’s gotten the exposure it has because it uses a process… that was previously not possible 20 years ago. 20 years ago works created using computing could not match the “hand” of an artist. Today… computing can create work that surpasses the human hand… and I can only imagine this is one of the reasons that this type of work is getting the attention it has.

Hell I won the Ars Electronica Golden Nica for “Tinkering”… let’s not isolate or label what’s good, bad, or credible… It’s a big fucking sandbox… I’ll be over here doing whatever the fuck I want.

ok, shifting gears.

I wasn’t there… and when I read everything… I actually agree with a ton of what Mr. Harris is saying… but I think his presentation would have been so much better had he kept the focus on himself and his own work.

These are the things I’M thinking about.
These are the issues I’M trying to apply to my own work.
These are the stories I’M trying to tell.
These are the battles that I fight.

but to call out an entire community? Addressing the masses about his disapproval of the current landscape of our community? That’s a bit arrogant and simple-minded.

I have nothing but love for straight people, gay people, bi-sexual people, christians, jews, muslims, republicans, democrats, etc.

It’s when they start telling me that their way of life is the “right” way and I’ve got it all wrong that I start to have issues. Mr. Harris had no right to imposes his feelings onto a diverse and wonderful community. Mr. Harris should fight his own internal battles about his work… keep the focus on himself and share his experience, strengths, and hopes with the community to connect with people who share the same concerns.

back to “tinkering”.

Josh - I was calling your second point only disingenuous, the one about stuff in museums and galleries beyond old. It’s clear that’s true of certain places, but there are plenty of galleries that show contemporary work - like yours.

I wasn’t arguing that art should tell stories either, though some does. I was comparing the language and structure of storytelling to the current lack of a native, innate language of interactive media. That someone says “this is how I think it should work” isn’t a bad thing, it’s better than someone saying “I’m going to copy what he or she is doing”. It gives rise to this kind of discussion and it’s one that’s well overdue in, let’s say “digital media production” and especially in the Flash community.

I’m not just talking art here either. Design can and should move people too - c.f Sagmesiter, Glaser, Brody, to name a few . There is way too much glossy commercial Flash work out there that relies on technical tricks over a decent idea. It’s the equivalent of the 3D spinning logo GIF animations of old.

I do think tinkering is essential – and I think Jonathan does as well – but not as an end in itself. Without tinkering you can’t find out the language of the medium. But, as Jon said, once you’ve worked out how to talk, what do you have to say?

Josh, although the technical process of your work might not have been possible 20 years ago, the language of it was being developed 60 years ago at least. I agree that your work probably has got the exposure it has because of the newness of the process and being in the right place at the right time. But what does that then say about the work itself? It’s pretty? Okay. But do you feel your pushing your medium as much as Pollack pushed his? I’m less certain and I don’t see much digital work that is trying to do that, but maybe I haven’t seen enough.

In terms of Jon’s delivery - sure, I think everyone including him agrees on this. I think a lot of people are getting far too hot under the collar about that because he did call them out on several home truths. Moaning about the way he said it is just a way of avoiding what he had to say.

Andy I have enjoyed both of your posts… in addition to the post on your own website. I wish I could rap with you in person.

Let me make it clear again that I agree to many of the problems Mr. Harris has brought up… I have problems with the way the message was delivered by the messenger.

“There is way too much glossy commercial Flash work” - yes that’s what clients hire us to do… I know my job as a designer is too create Flashy things for my clients to help them set themselves apart from competitors in their industry. Flash is a tool which was created and is still maintained to server this purpose. Which is why none of my clients want to use processing for commercial endeavors.

So what Mr Harris is talking about must be art… Dance is an art form… what I do is an art form… but should I go to a dance class and impose my problems and ideals which pertain to my art form to the art form of dance ?

Mr. Harris is clearly making art and using tools which the art world clearly embraces… so for me it’s problematic for him to come to a Flash conference, though I clearly understand that FOTB is bigger and not isolate to just Flash, and call out the Flash Community to his ideals… is a bit of a stretch for me.

“Design can and should move people” yes it can… but no it shouldn’t… My toothbrush is well designed but it doesn’t make me cry every time I brush my teeth.

we agree that tinkering is essential… “but not as an end in itself” really? I thinker all day long and the things I make I apply to clients who hire me, their happy, I’m happy, I get paid, I buy food, I eat, I live. I don’t think my clients are thinking so deeply about making projects to make people cry to sell more shoes. If you look at Sagmesiter’s career, whom is a good friend of mine, not everything he makes follows Mr. Harris’s Ideals… Stefan and I worked on packaging together for a software company… it was pretty… it didn’t make anybody think or cry.

“There is way too much glossy commercial Flash work out there that relies on technical tricks over a decent idea” - seems like you should have a good talking to the AD agencies that hire us.

“But do you feel your pushing your medium as much as Pollack pushed his?” yes I do. I think people like myself, natzke, yugo, etc. have pushed farther in such a short period of time… than Pollack did in his entire lifetime.

to conclude… I feel it was unfair for the commercial design community who uses Flash to create design work for corporate clients to be “scolded” by an Artist clearly making art who doesn’t use Flash at all as arrogant.

“With a number of notable exceptions, most of the work I see coming from the Flash community is largely devoid of ideas. There is great obsession with slickness, surface, speed, technology, and language, but very little soul at the core, very little being said.”

With a number of notable exceptions, most of the work I see coming from the Processing community looks like any number of default screen savers I’ve had pre-installed on my boxes during my lifetime as a nerd. OH JOSHUA DAVIS NO YOU DIDN’T… NO YOU DIDN’T… see it’s unfair. Don’t single out the Flash Community Homey. Clients pay us to make things with slickness, surface, speed, technology, and language… SON Coke doesn’t want to make people CRY they want to sell MORE Coke.

it’s apples and oranges man… apples and oranges.

has this debate been at the Ars Electronica about the current landscape of the ART Community… or the Processing Community, or the VVVV Community, or the Nodebox Community… I’d probably Give Mr. Harris a standing ovation.

Josh - me too, and at some point I hope we get the chance to.

You’ve touched on a whole bunch of good points and I think the key one (actually what you said in your previous comment) is that none of what any of us say or do can and will be shoe-horned into a set of rules.

And I do agree that “this is what I design/make-art/live my life by” would have been a better approach to presenting a set of ideals. But I do think it’s important for people to pen such manifestos because it really makes concrete a lot of stuff otherwise fairly loosely washing around in our heads and in the industry.

I do think design should move, but in that I don’t necessarily mean making people cry. I’m happy with some of the small niceties that make me feel like someone has thought about the experience I am having with their interface/product/service, I’m happy when something makes me smile because of the wit of it. Now, there are plenty of Flash ‘tricks’ that, when used in a decent design context, have that effect. But there are a whole heap (and this is true of almost all the digital tools we use, let’s face it) that are repetitive clichés.

The tools define what we make - they always have. It’s easier to serifs in stone are more natural to a chisel, script comes easier with a dip-pen, 1980s screensavers come easy to Processing because the raw materials are dots and lines, and, until recently, abstract vector shapes came easiest to Flash.

My point about some of the novelty that the Flash community has developed is about being aware of what is engaging or interesting about what has been created. As I wrote here and on my blog, André’s audio work in Flash is impressive because it’s done in Flash not because nobody has done it ever before (c.f. Reason). It’s important, in my view at least, to know what’s gone before so you know what you’re getting excited about.

From my conversations with designers like Milton Glaser, Stefan Sagmeister, Neville Brody and Simon Waterfall, that kind of awareness comes up over and over again. It’s not just the Flash community that suffer from this, it’s one of the perils of working in a medium that allows you to work so quickly.

We made plenty of tinkering experiments at Antirom - many of which, such as the scrollers, ended up re-making pre-existing things like the zoetrope. But many of the code engines were the beginning with a great deal of time and trial and error spent on working out what visual and audio elements worked in those engines in order to make them engaging interactive experiences. The two go and in hand don’t they? That, to me, is about the process of trying to discover the language of the medium, both technically and creatively. When one of those becomes dominant you either get technical wizardry and nothing more, or over-blown art that is technically lacking (which is often visually awful too - hence the screensaver syndrome). Neither is particularly engaging and most of us have made both in our attempts to discover the sweet spot in the middle.

I’m still not convinced that the medium has been pushed anywhere near as far as you think it has, especially when you compare it to the context of, say, painting in Pollack’s time. But that’s probably a longer, richer conversation to have sometime.

Two last points:

“Have a good talking to the AD agencies that hire us.” Absolutely. Advertising has always leeched from the art world. It’s rarely an industry of originality. Clients can only imagine what they have seen before. Brand managers and account managers will go for the safer bet most often because not many people want to be the one who gets fired for taking a risk that went wrong. The nuggets of brilliance that do emerge from what is an enormous dross of day-to-day advertising are usually those that have either taken a risk, or ripped off something from the art world and used it to clever, stunning effect. They are fairly rare clients.

Here is where I think we can all make a massive difference and where experimentation is essential. It is crucially important for designers/developers/artists/producers to show clients the experimental work because it’s the only way many of them will see something new that changes what they think of as the way to “do” whatever project they have in hand. But it can (must, I would suggest) still be emotionally engaging at some level. (My own bent on this is about playfulness and engagement on that emotional level.) Yes Coke what to sell more Coke, but they want to do it by making you feel like your part of a lifestyle that Coke represents, and that’s an emotional engagement.

The other point is about Harris being “an Artist clearly making art who doesn’t use Flash”. As I said before, he’s also done a great deal of commercial work aside from artwork. Additionally 10×10, WordCount and several other of his projects were created in Flash. The guy knows what he’s talking about on that front.

Andy, I would love to keep this discussion going… but I have to fly to Korea today.

Let me say it has been a pleasure… I have enjoyed your posts tremendously… I have appreciated your views on this topic… and it’s really got me thinking.

I would hope if you do write about this topic in some sense in Creative Review… that you would document feelings on both sides of the fence… as I feel both have valid arguments. You can’t just say Mr. Harris is 100% right and the Flash Community is in Denial about a truth we don’t want to face. The problem is much bigger than this and not exclusively reserved to just the Flash Community.

It’s in this that I have my beef with Mr. Harris… again I feel it was unfair for him to call out the Flash Community… Much of the blame resides in a massive hierarchy in our industry.

Clients who don’t take risks.
Agencies who pitch dull ideas.
as you know… it goes on and on and on

so the message I think should be about the way engage the personal work we do… since it is free from these constraints. But many people in the Flash community have jobs and money to make in order to support a living. A shit load of free time to devote or aspire to many of the problems posed in Mr. Harris’s lecture is unrealistic.

Clients often have no idea… their only frame of reference is trendy work they have seen on the internet… and their initial reaction is to replicate not innovate. Agencies play it safe and want get paid so the snuggle up with the client and replicate… leaving the landscape of our industry stale and boring.

I think if this discussion were to continue… let’s shift it to where this problem starts… the client… FUCK the client has no idea this discussion is even happening… thus this whole back and forth of bitching and praise is hot air. Nothing will change. Let the press write about… that if clients would get out of their own way… something interesting could happen. Highlight Mr. Harris’s ideals and problems as they relate to what clients “Don’t Do” and Mr. Harris might actually see some of his ambitions come to fruition… but to focus on the Flash Community as the root of this problem is misguided.

I have nothing but love for you all, see you in a few days…

Joshua Davis

Thanks Josh - I’ll ping you an e-mail because I’ve got a thought about continuing this too.

Clients do often only see the glossy, clichéd stuff, which is why it’s really important for work like Jonathan’s and many others to get seen by other designers, developers and producers so that they might feed back to their clients some new ideas. Of course, clients should also go and see that stuff too. It goes both ways and it’s an old problem from long before the days of Flash (as anyone watching Mad Men will have seen).

I will try my best to write this all up (and, of course, the rest of FOTB) as evenly as possible in Creative Review. The good thing is that quite a few clients read it.

Making art is personal, as personal as making love. “I like it when the woman is on top” is an innocuous statement. But it assumes too much to say, “The woman should always be on top.”

For myself, questions like “will this still be relevant in 25 years?” stop my creative process cold. So it’s interesting to know they inspire other people, and perhaps those people will find Jonathan Harris’s talk helpful. There’s no one gospel on how to make art; as long as everyone realizes that, we can have a fascinating conversation.

***warning I may go way off track here, but I wanted to write anyway***

Andy & Josh - such a f’k'n awesome and respectful debate
I honestly could read this dispute all day long and I agree with many points
made, I agree with many things that many people said however 1 point that is very sadly so true in this day and age
is that clients do not & will not “get this” until ..hmm who knows when

Jonathan Harris’s work is great and yes it has a message, right on, great, ok,
but a true master of any art form is humble, I mean its just rude to group everyone and to assume to be an “authority” to judge us all, is it any wonder, people are feeling rubbed the wrong way ?
but I’m just wondering … if anyone walked into lets say a sculptor’s conference, a glass blowing seminar or lets say a top fashion designers conference etc. etc. etc. <>
and imagine a respected figure walked in and closed a conference in the same style to what Jonathan Harris said about approach, current works (be it commercial or experimental / personal) and the message sent out by their chosen “apparatus” or “tools”.

I think this response must have been expected

first of all, we are talking about only a decade of this “tool” flash … not even a teenager.
Can anyone name something so vernal (except processing) that could have such an effect on the world… be it social media, digital media, advertising media, broadcast media, cinema, art, music, typography, animation, programming… the list goes on, Flash has touched it.

Maybe we can forget for second - what we actually produce
and look at the fact of what it is produced by - a piece of software
the fact that its the most downloaded piece of software in the history of the world and has more viewers than any art gallery or publication …
FACT - more people on this planet know about “subservient chicken” than they do about Pollock’s ‘number 8′ or ‘The Persistence of Memory’ by Salvador Dalí.

Flash as a software is bigger than some religions ..sorry if that’s offensive
to anyone (I’m both spiritual_&_religious) so anyone who is enraged …please go burn your John Lennon records

this “TOOL’ that no one apparently knows how to talk with yet or isn’t saying anything meaningful ….
I mean as true as that statement can possibly be, is as wrong as it possibly is to even say it, especially to those that enjoy pushing the envelope

I mean lets break it down … and lets not beat around the bush here
quintessentially - its a conference called FLASH on the beach !!!
no matter what your profession, skill or weapon of choice …if you don’t have some love for flash then your in the wrong f’k'n place mate.

its just so premature, that its obviously obvious
True its a tool but its such a relatively new tool compared to other “artistic” tools
its like someone saying to NASA that they are just tinkering with space travel

“now you can fly, where will you go”

its not that simple

Anyone could stand on stage and give the same observation to anything so young so of course its all just embryonic looking at it, each satellite or mission to Mars is “tinkering” and it could take 199 years for the next major historic breakthrough …but you could argue that each milestone is a masterpiece, something to take your breath away

So consider the fact that the same kinda non-encouraging statements were said back in the 60’s & 70’s when electronic musical instruments like the synthesizer started generating sounds in popular music …it was just a tool
and yes you need to incorporate real life experiences and involve some emotion, create a message

People didn’t see this new wave of music as anything important, it wasn’t even considered a talent or indeed a “real” instrument or art form.
They were just people tinkering around with wires… no masterpiece in sight.

Musical artists all over the world probably said similar things to people like Kraftwork, Jean Michelle Jarr, Mike Oldfield
questions like “now you have learnt to play these synthetic instruments, what will you compose?”

and they just probably looked blankly and said …
“I’ll just continue doing what I’m doing thanks, so if you want Mozart go look elsewhere, just doing what we do, if you like it cool, if not no problem”

So has Jean Michelle Jarr ever created a masterpiece?
… some would argue (me included to be honest) probably f**king not
but he had the biggest concert ever with 3.5 million
and with 80 million albums and singles sold, so kudos to him.

Jean Michelle Jarr will your music make someone gasp or cry?
- probably f**king not
Does your music feel as special as a love song?
- probably f**king not
Does your music truly represent our time?
- probably f**king not
Will your music still feel relevant in 25 years?
- probably f**king not
Does it sound like something that’s never been heard before?
- probably f**king not
Does it compare to the masterpieces of other musical styles?
- probably f**king not
Could it have gone further?
- probably f**king not

I don’t know … you don’t know… Jonathan Harris doesn’t know, Jean Michelle Jarr doesn’t know. Nobody knows until who knows when, time will tell
but will Jean Michelle Jarr continue to do what he does …of course.

Andy if you had said the same things it probably would have been better received. What would have been far better would have been some praise to the fact that we are all just stepping stones to the talents of the future
we are only carving a path for the future masterpieces … and no credit will be given when we are all long gone and forgotten.

no one ever gave Elisha Gray, Thomas A. Edison or Robert Moog any credit for tinkering with digital music back in the day but ask yourself
how much of today’s most successful, awarded and praised music is digital.

From Billion dollar conglomerate industries such as Virgin Group all the way up to world altering events such a Hiroshima were all based on the results of “tinkering” with technology

so what if we are all sans-masterpiece in some peoples opinions
then I, for one, am happy to be part of the ‘fallen ones’ who helped lay down the path, however small my contribution, so that someone, maybe many years after me, can create something that could be considered worthy of answering the great all mighty question posed by Mr. Harris
“Once you have learned how to speak, what will you say?”
… Baka ie!

in my opinion I think Jonathan was both bold and contemptuous to say what he said…and as much as I want to thank him for making everyone address this and talk about the obvious truths when dealing with such a young art form BUT
I’m still going with my initial gut feeling
…and that it is not some thought provoking genius reverse psychology to inspire us all and make us all up our game, revolt against client briefs etc. etc.
but mealy it is a pre-meditated way to shake a traditionally peaceful hornets nest and gain more attention in an industry where he was being shadowed by such shining talents, who for whatever reason or circumstance are bound by client limitations and projects that don’t allow funds for any wild and fancy freedom of expression.

still it makes for a great debate

Hmm. Jean Michel Jarre recorded Equinoxe in 1978. 30 years later it’s still pretty relevant - techno and most electronic music owes a debt to folks like him. He is also working in a medium that has been around for thousands of years, so there’s a lot more to compare to.

That aside - I don’t believe for a moment that Jonathan said what he said to gain attention in the Flash industry. Not from my conversations with him, at least. I’m not particularly sure he needs or wants that attention to be honest.

I think he was speaking from a frustration that many of have felt for a long while – and I’m talking about a broad range of people over about 15 years here. Nobody really knows where this area is heading, nobody really has a clear definition of what they do (see some of the conversations on the IxD list) and much of it is technologically determined. It’s not going to change anytime soon. It’s what makes it exciting to work in, but it’s also frustrating too. Keeping a balance between us trying to discover and define the medium and the medium (or, rather, the tools) defining us is important.

I came across this old video and it seemed uncanny how appropriate it fit. I just did a couple of dubs and I think it’s funny how it turned out:
http://www.tinyurl.com/genart

rel