Something must be said to break the silence.


Maybe we could try to consider chairs, tables, the ways and rules that define the arrangement of furniture in spaces as elements of an interface.

Space itself although it somehow just seems to surround the elements within its limits would thus define a framework that directs the interface's function.



Basically I 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 expressions.

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.

Instead of 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.

Of course, interfaces usually translate actions between man and machine or between machines only.

We could consider actions or doings as derivates of language.

To what extent is language a derivate of action?

Are there machines whose programs cannot be decribed in terms of language?

Museums are spaces that spatially organise the symbolical exchange between man and machine.

Artworks are machines that prototypically elaborate on their specific machine-qualities. They do not refer to an outside. There is no message of sorts.

Museums are systems in which the absence of message is compensated by an accelaration of projective measures. .

What have 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.

Maybe conversations are interfaces. Also words. What about sounds?

Usually 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...

Or inauguration.

What measure do we take when preparing to use interfaces?

The computer takes time to start up. We wait and spend time. Admittance to interfacial setups happens through intermissions in the time-flow.

What time, what specific change in attitude does it take to change from word to song?


Feb. 8th, 2003