>2. I would definitely want a more concrete description or representation of the images involved. Yes, the rhizome structure itself really supersedes, leaving the question of image behind, but I don't think we can cast substance aside completely. What will we be looking at? If you don't know yet, then what *kind* of image will we be looking at?
the best i can do is to just say look at drawboard samples? (see the thing in the 5 links page) perhaps things will look different as more types of people mix together. hopefully people who know how to draw will stay away.
>3. During the projection, will it be possible for passers-by to interact with the image? To change it?
this is a key question – this is up to me – or actually it’s up to whoever is projecting the image – one way to do it would be to just show the image – filling the whole screen – without the extra browser buttons and stuff –you could let the browser’s URL be visible or otherwise indicate where they might go online to “join in” – people are smart – imagine the iPhone user’s delight.
what also might be fun would be to not show the browser URL window but do offer up several different URL’s which would lead to other instances of drawboards, which would be playing somewhere else (they would have no idea where, but obviously somewhere) – people in Tokyo being shown in Berlin – the Berliners are shown to New Yorkers – and these relationships could be constantly reconfigured – mostly to maintain maximum excitement – imagine how super delighted someone would be if they could figure out how to control the image being projected right outside their apartment for two weeks in a row.
4. The most important theoretical element is that your statement or application or whatever it is should contain a justification for the viewing of the projection within these traditional (and non-traditional) contexts. I would want to know what is added to the project by taking it off of the web and putting it out in public. In answering this query you might wish to consider issues of access, of scale, of visual impact, of intentionality (in public space the installation can be happened upon by accident, for example, whereas on the web it must be sought out to some extent). I would want to know why exactly the web- which is placeless, total, and unbound- is paradoxically more limiting for this project than an installation would be.
you would want to know that wouldn’t you. what can I say about it that will add to its meaning. either it’s a good idea, or it’s not. who cares what i think? i think the emotional feeling of voyeurism and exhibitionism is strong – and i have been wanting to test the boundaries between private and public spheres ever since the internet…happened? i cannot say if it’s “mathematically” smarter than some other conceptual art projects out there before or after. i just want to make it happen.
5. I know that part of your project assumes a certain level of anonymity and/or obfuscation, which flies in some art worlds but not others. I live in the "not others" part of the art world. In that vein, I think that the prose of the proposal should be serious and straightforward. I realize this goes against the CB aesthetic. Don't lose the voice completely, but do come across as someone serious, someone who has thought everything through, someone who will really make this happen. In rejecting this advice, consider what you want to have happen- is it more important to have come up with the idea, or to actually secure the grant? Duchamp was awesome and a genius, and he wasn't accepted to the Society of Independent Artists' show. He had to sneak "Fountain" in the back.
i’ll sneak you in the back.