YesNo by Timo Kahlen feels like “traditional” net art, a well crafted stuck webpage for the user’s aural and clickable enjoyment.
it is easy to find sites or magazines that provide the solutions of video games. They often show the overall structure of the levels, or reveal secret passages indicate tricks and 'cheat modes' to players in need. It appears that the last work of Alexander Galloway , a member of the Radical Software Group and coauthor of Carnivore , seems to provide this service. The title How to win "Super Mario Bros" does not promise anything in particular but just take a look at the official website to understand the provocation. The solution of the famous Nintendo platform is truly given 'literally', indicating with the classical notation for guitar records all keystrokes are necessary to overcome various levels. To reinforce the concept, these scores are accompanied by endless movies that show, level by level, the movements of the thumbs on the joypad of a player model. Although it sounds vaguely leave out the field guess what is going on, it is absolutely impossible to get some info on the game. How to win Super Mario Bros shows how the 'solution', a text implicit but empirically understandable, become unintelligible once made manifest with a transcript rigorous. In a sense, the work of Galloway is explained the operation of a machine to another machine, and can be put in relation with a singular experiment, decidedly more goliardico, done in a college of Vermont. A group of students claims to have created with Lego bricks and electronic components a robot that applied to a joypad is able to complete the first level of the same game plumber. Both experiments make us reflect sull'inflazionato concept of interactivity. If the role of the player is to mechanically perform a series of statements if a human being can easily be 'emulated' by a rudimentary robot, it would be more logical to let play the machines?