The bottom line is that this is an experiment. This work is not meant to be functional or provide solutions but to reflect. To make the impossible possible I started the rather cathartic action of nailing pudding to the wall…

When technology is new we feel the urge to jump on it and try it right away. This curiosity is of course commendable however at this stage we do not yet know the technology well enough for artistic use. Instead it is more likely to dominate the artwork then we think: “This is cool. What can I do with it?” when the idea should be “I want to do X. What technology can I use for it?” A waiting period of 3 years should give us a better understanding.

Former wording:

Technology and technical devices must be older than 3 years unless they are not used for their original purpose.

(meaning hacked or re-invented or extended)

Wowed by technology, framed by the industry. The art piece should not be about the newest technology or act as a form of presentation for this technology. Technology and technical devices should be used as tools like a painter uses a brush and paint.

Sounds can be amplified but must be live, computed or generated. Samples and recordings must not be used.

Nowadays laptops are quite powerful, computationally and storage wise. They usually have a wireless connection and the battery can make them operate for at least some time without cable. This gives us mobility and the chance to present the artwork where it is best in context. The presentation space of the artwork is in very important and should be considered part of the work, although this naturally can be slightly different for each presentation.

Former wording:

If a computer is in use it must be a laptop or a mobile device

Usually projections are used in the given format by the projection device, but why do we not question these restrictions? It makes a break in the artwork to see rectangular projections that do not consider the content of the artwork itself. The same thing happens when we show documentation of works which need to be experienced.

To prevent exhibiting the documentation instead of the work. Screens should be used in a more clever way then just retell the story of the piece. Interactive art and  most media artworks are really hard to grasp and experience from descriptions, so I think we should’t do it.

Former wording:

Projections must be non rectangular. Screens must be part of the artwork.

 Former wording:

Post-production of visual content like photographs and video are forbidden. Generated graphics are forbidden

We still have to give us and the visitor room for interpretation and experiencing the work, not a fixed pattern that is to be followed.

Former wordings:

No predictable interaction techniques (meaning e.g. camera tracking or pressing a button, touchscreen). No instructions; No games.

This rule deals with two problems.

The physical object, the screen, the media facade, etc is the medium to transport or create the message but it is not the artwork itself. An art piece with replaceable content is simply a device. The interface and the content are always connected and influence each other. This means the interface can underline the artwork but not be the artwork.

The other is the interface that seems to be added onto the artwork afterwards in order to give the visitor the possibility of interaction. Often this is in form of a touch screen (computer and mouse) or a manufactured interface used in combination with the artwork. The problem is it makes a break between the artwork and the interaction. It is not a fluent connection.

Former wordings of this rule:

The interface must not be the artwork

The Dogma 95 has at this point the rule: “The film format must be Academy 35 mm”. On first look the hardware and format come to mind. The camera itself is very large and heavy and would be difficult to carry for a hand-held use, which rule #3 commands you to do. Also it uses the primal 4:3 film format. Considering the Dogma 95 rules, the reasoning seems to be to use the ‘old’ and ‘original’ so we do not give everything up for the newest technology. Now I believe this is the rule that takes the Dogma 95 movies to the professional level and especially high quality. Even though we have bad lighting because it is dark outside, or filming is taking place inside, or the camera is moving, etc the film itself has the best quality. Of course this is more a technical criteria but it demands professional experience and knowledge. This rule ended up being eased since it is difficult to carry these cameras and filming was often done with Video. Nevertheless it shows the idea and in this sense we have to get rid of complicated routines for awakening our artworks. After set up, a single action, depending of the medium, must be able to turn on or off the artwork. This can be a button, a power plug, or clapping your hands, etc.

Thanks to Onur Sönmez