must be said to break the silence.
could try to consider chairs, tables, the ways and rules that define the
arrangement of furniture in spaces as elements of an interface.
although it somehow just seems to surround the elements within its limits would
thus define a framework that directs the interface's function.
have no idea where the term "interface" comes from. It seems to imply
a communicative function of a dualist kind. Faces directed toward each other,
an exchange of gestures or words, performed and transformed within and through
a space in-between. What distance could such interfaces bridge? The minimum of
eye to eye and a maximum that still allows for a reconaissance of facial
Should we suppose
that such an interfacial exchange always refers to the model of a dialogue?
What if several voices or faces, say, 3, 4, 5, or more participate? Instead of
one single virtual line connecting the eyes and
mouths of the partners in a dialogue the particpating speakers, lookers
and listeners would soon form a complex network of lines that cross, overlay
and intersect. Given that even gestures would be part of the communicative
exchange the resulting figure - in case we'd continue to draw lines between the
communicative in- and out-puts - would soon look like a spider-web warping in
height, density and extension.
speaking or thinking of lines that connect
we could imagine such an interfacial space as a threedimsional form that changes its shape in accord with each of the respective inputs - an invisible
shape that actively evolves between the faces.
interfaces usually translate actions between man and machine or between
consider actions or doings as derivates of language.
extent is language a derivate of action?
machines whose programs cannot be decribed in terms of language?
spaces that spatially organise the symbolical exchange between man and machine.
are machines that prototypically elaborate on their specific machine-qualities.
They do not refer to an outside. There is no message of sorts.
systems in which the absence of message is compensated by an accelaration of
projective measures. .
games to do with it? Games state that an something new can be produced (or can
happen) even (or because) one exerts the same rules (or patterns). Of course,
games are interfaces.
conversations are interfaces. Also words. What about sounds?
it's politically important not to let games overboard - meaning a clear
separation between playground and context is drawn. Different measures are
taken to create the feeling of admittance or dismissal...
measure do we take when preparing to use interfaces?
computer takes time to start up. We wait and spend time. Admittance to
interfacial setups happens through intermissions in the time-flow.
what specific change in attitude does it take to change from word to song?
Feb. 8th, 2003