Bratton and Jeremijenko seem to be cautious of any type of data that is simply collected to be stored, and not actively used, and are weary of the purpose behind the data being collected. Bratton has mixed feelings about data having audiences, as they may further the audience from the real environmental issues they represent. I somewhat disagree with their stance. I think any data can be valuable, regardless of why it was collected or how passive it may be. Many environmental art projects seem to simply present information without actually making an impact on the environment, but are important in the sense that they raise awareness and expose environmental issues by making the audience feel a certain way. There is difference between the projects such as The Babbling Brook and projects such as the Environmental Health Clinic is the audience's interactivity. The audience is not directly involved with the data in The Babbling Brook, only observing data from sensors, as opposed the the Environmental Health Clinic where the data is put to use in real life applications. However, both projects accomplish the goal of awareness. There is a lot of information and knowledge out there, and the amount can seem overwhelming but they do serve a great purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment