- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:52:55 -0700
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 2:15 PM -0700 2001/8/18, Charles F. Munat wrote: >Gravity's Rainbow is a work of art. As such: > >2. There is no visual equivalent of Gravity's Rainbow. It doesn't even work >in translation. You might get a similar effect, the plot might be the same, >but the power of Gravity's Rainbow depends in large part on the *way* it is >written. Change one word and it is *no longer Gravity's Rainbow*. > >Thus Gravity's Rainbow, as with all art, IS in its clearest and simplest >form at the time of its publication and *no equivalents are possible*. Chaz, a hypothetical: I'm a graphic artist. I work for a web development company. My "art" is the specific visual design I craft and create for my clients. Likewise, I have my own personal site, which is an expression of my thoughts and feelings, in visual form. The colors, the fonts, the graphics -- they're all chosen to represent some aspect of my soul. The minute you start changing those visual parameters, you've just made something which is *no longer my work of art*. It is something else. Because it's art, IS in its clearest and simplest form at time of creation, and *no equivalents are possible*. Right or wrong? --Kynn PS: What is the longdesc for the Mona Lisa? -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 00:53:01 UTC