ON! at the Contemporary Art Center in Cincinnati

ooooh. its like 08 (98, 67, 56, 40, 1851 . . .) all over again.
any context? history? critique?
expect more than this-especially when you step into this area. otherwise you're just demonstrating a desperate lack of insight.

This exhibition looks great--handmade in the digital realm is a great way to humanize technology.
However, I roll my eyes a bit whenever someone says "collapsing the boundary between fine art and commercial." Since interaction seems to be the new "it" girl of the design museum circuit (see MoMA), for today at least, we need to clarify what we are talking about. Interaction is the equivalent of a paintbrush or a brick. But it's how you use it that separates "play, fun, and entertainment" (with its commercial implications which branding people salivate over) from art that seeks to challenge, disorient, speak with meaning. Maybe these projects do that, maybe they don't, but the language used certainly implies that entertainment is a superior criteria then art.

In short: yes, context is a bit lacking. Maybe we are just so far in the beginning of examining this that we are stuck in the hey look at this cool stuff phase. Which is a bit shallow, but hey, what can you do.

Bravo Debbie!

Great way to give context to the work by hearing directly from the artists about their intentions, experiences and interests. Participatory work is so nascent a field that its a treat for those of us who may not make it to the show to see the work. Thanks for taking the time to bring us this collection of artists, most of whom I hadn't heard of until now, but am glad that you brought to all of your audience.