[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
*Everyone* has their style-issues...but you could say, a style-sheet for
every occasion and audience. After all, style sheets could deflect or
inflate content as well as style if you wanted. As an engineer, I view this
as progressive. As a poet, I'd rather take serendipity than prepacked
ungoodness.
"Bullard, Claude
L (Len)" To: "'roger.day@globalgraphics.com'" <roger.day@globalgraphics.com>
<clbullar@ingr.co cc: "'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
m> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint
18/12/2003 16:18
But it was Allen Ginsburg who sat on the floor
next to me, grabbed my left hand, and insisted
that I play the normative blues hammer on pull
off riff as he improvised his poetry rather than
let me improvise in my own style along with him.
He had his style issues and he
stuck to his guns on them. He said I was playing
too many notes and wandering off The Beat, and
after all, The Beat mattered. He had a good point.
Real time usually wants simplicity and familiarity.
In a recording studio where we could have compared
takes, he might have liked it better, but I would
have also converged on The Beat. Feedback is the
beginning of intelligence and perhaps all that discriminates
creativity from repetition.
I wish there were more random audiences. These days
it seems to me they've become overspecialized, overfed,
and are clinging to The Eagles and Lynard Skynard for
dear life. Glad to see The OutKasts.
XML succeeds because it is just enough rules and otherwise
doesn't give a d**m. Should we write our presentations
in XML? Well, how adaptive is the display engine to
real time control? How well can one write the content
to be adaptible? Tool AND talent AND practice.
len
From: roger.day@globalgraphics.com [mailto:roger.day@globalgraphics.com]
content matches form meets audience distribution, at least that would be
content's dream. Mozart had some complexity to say, but he left it up to
the specialists to batter their heads against the semantic conduits. Music
can carry complex abstractions better, I think, because it's received by a
different part of the brain; sounds and words aim at other parts where
complexities are less welcome in the arena of performance. I've attended
John Ashberry and Allen Ginsberg readings; the heart and mind were engaged
at different areas in both.
But, as a rule of thumb, with a randomly selected audience, I'd go for
simple. Of course, if I could guarantee an audience of PhD students, then
the blackboard would be full of indecipherable and chalkdust take the
hindmost.
|
