Alot of the examples you're citing read more about your personal values about right and wrong than they do of some sort of objective RIGHT or WRONG.bradtem wrote:Sorry, I have to say I feel it's ludicrous to suggest there is no right or wrong here. If somebody came in with a mega-sound-system and blared industrial music over top of the Temple soundtrack, I would be hard pressed to see how that wouldn't be wrong. If somebody came in with a fire truck and extinguished the temple, I also don't see much ambiguity, and the security would stop them. I had somebody come up and try to write on my photographs at the decompression. Had they not run away, do you dispute it would have been proper to eject them from the event?
The only party I can nominate to decide what's appropriate in terms of additional participation would be the artist. No, that's not perfect, but that's the only reasonable one.
Could the artist get very anal and repress legitimate artistic addition to his or her work? Sure. I would much rather see the risk of that then say there can't be a right and wrong in such a situation.
My point is that it's near impossible to establish a right action/wrong action protocol with-in the context of the ongoing artistic (or not so) dialogue that seem to be a root cause for participation in Burningman.
Sure Blaring Industrial music may seem inappropiate to many and certianly could be considerd rude. However it could also be a profound statement on humanities inability to control and filter an experience in 3D space. or whatever...
Sure security would probably stop (or attempt to) the extinguishing of the temple by some random firetruck... but what if ther where extenuating circumstances? Some 12 year old was hiding inside... or again whatever...
The situation of someone writing on your display is certainly valid but is more akin to vandalism than lazer dots could be. So, in answer to the implied question; No I wouldn't dispute having the vandals kicks out. Along those lines, are you catagorizing the lazer pointers as Vandals and suggesting that it would be proper to round them up and kick them out?
slippery slope warning
So getting back to "appropiate" sure the creator(s) can indicate how the artwork should be interacted with, but unless the environment is as controlled as it would be in a museum the artist must except (for the sake of their own peace of mind at least) that those indications are not etched in stone. It would be like insisting that the temple be burned only on a clear night.
To clarify on your final point. I'm not suggesting that there can be No right or wrong way to appriecate/interact with the work of art. I saying that the determination of that right and wrong must as a matter of nessessity be made on an individual level. Otherwise how would we not risk slipping into a dogmatic set of right/wrong value systems.
i appologize if I'm seeming to be just contrary, I'm just more interested in expanding the nature of this dialogue beyond reactions to lazer dots ya'know.
The point you seem to be making reads more like an appeal to reaction against vandalism. Using the green lines to represent the lazer dots doesn't account for their movement through space and time. The image evokes more of an association with the temple being spraypainted (thus vandelized) than it does succeed in simulating an image of the temple with lazer points projected upon its surface.
It's a false "either or". Appriecating the lazer dots doesn't lead to an image like the one on the right.
As for which is "more moving" or "more Peaceful" or "represents the artists intent" I would have to select choice number 3:
how can you dispute that this is the most Moving/Peaceful and representive of the artists' intent