<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>fidelity [shelf life]</title></head><body>
<div>Coming back to the thread after the long weekend, I'd like to
take up Tim's comments on fidelity and emulation.</div>
<div><font color="#007700"><br></font></div>
<div>I'm inclined to believe that fidelity is incompatible with the
fluidity of emulation as it applies to new media art. 'Emulation'
implies a process that imitates or recreates a thing, and the term
suggests incorporation of imperfections or differences or at the very
least a generational remove. Emulation inevitably incorporates
translation, mutation and alteration, perhaps in ways that shifts
intent and interpretation. It also defines itself against the
'original' thing.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A Sol Lewitt drawing, if carried out as per instructions, might
contain subtle shifts and variations in different reconstructions
based on different wall surfaces or the precison of its
artist-executors. But those shifts and imperfections would remain
within the conceptual boundaries of the process and have 'fidelity'
and integrity. If however, the only pencils available to 'perform' the
wall drawing were impossibly perfect drawing tools and created a cold
mechanical line rather than a warm drawn one, a quite different
impression would ensue. It's funny to think about how hard it can be
to emulate a more simple state. But the difference in tools is
everything.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You can containerize many aspects of a work-narrative content,
visual appearance, sound, text-and then repackage it, either by
emulating the original environment or porting it to a new one. This
process can open the work up, add layers of history and new context
and create a descendent work. This may be a small infidelity, but
possibly a necessary one.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Annette</div>
</body>
</html>