judsoN is a computer artist currently living in New York City. Born and raised in the American Midwest (Kansas City), judsoN graduated from Brown University, Rhode Island. He has always been fascinated by the graphically charged work particularly those from the turn-of-the-century, and is a fan of Russian Constructivism. JudsoN's interests lie in advertising, automobiles, and 20th century technology. JudsoN's work has been shown on stage, Internet and in numerous galleries including the MoMA. His works fuse art, dance and sculpture, colour, sound, stage, theatre and the World Wide Web into hybrid form s mediated by technology. He has created art installations for the Arts Council of Mildura, Australia and the Museo D'arte in Sao Paolo, Brazil. As a published author, judsoN still finds time to maintain his status as the artistic director of Plasma Studii, a non-profit arts organisation, and I was privileged enough to have the opportunity to interview him during the month of March 2005 to ask more about his practice. The artist's work features technologically-driven media and focuses on communication and its delivery.

Kim: For those unfamiliar with digital art, could you give an overview of it and your own thought as a digitally based artist? That might be a good place to start.

judsoN: Much of web art (one brand of computer art) - (to the uninitiated, appears to be really just conceptual. If you are not familiar with how browsers function, what JavaScript (is and) does, etc., you may not even notice anything happening on the screen or know that you need to push buttons. There is a hybrid conceptual-computer language that remains so loosely defined, far too young in evolution, and not (nearly) widespread enough to be common.

There is a tiny faction of people involved (in computer art), and the great majority of those are practitioners of critical theory. This is not to say looking at art through any theory-philosophy lens is right or wrong. Most of this art will be (theoretically based) and the reasons are mostly to do with the people, not the media itself.

Most people in the field of web art, (such as) curators of online galleries, (as well as) critics and theorists of net art began, often just out of college. They tend to be more interested in art theory than the aesthetics of art.

Kim: I know the theory side is popular and necessary to understand, "appreciate" and promote art and its related facets.

In an interview with Mike Figgis, photographer Jeff Wall said: "People now tend to think their experience of art is based in understanding the art, whereas in the past people in general understood the art and were maybe more freely able to absorb it intuitively". I suppose the "aesthetics" that people are drawn to exist largely because of the historical context of the work, which could make it extremely challenging for new media to break the bubble. I think people are convinced (or have been told) that painting means more. History determines the work's worth. What do you think?

judsoN: Kids tend to look at art without analyzing their emotional response. Adults tend to get convoluted and project their own labyrinths and interpretations. So much work (particularly post-Abstract Impressionism) leaves you to wonder "why would anyone want to look at that:

The goal for many is to drop intuition like a hot potato and run the other way.

Kim: In an article by Jean Baudrillard about the end of American culture, the author calls that kind of childlike innocence or ignorance a "naive visibility of things" (pg. 84), but it seems like it's really a transcendence of the reality, and it's beautiful. Children engage in the fantasy without worrying about the reality outside.

JudsoN: (Adults) scrutinise these seemingly confrontational images, but find the subjects' individualism is actually missing! All that is left is contemplation. The chance for intuitive appreciation is passed and thereby avoided. This phenomenon is hardly unique to any one medium.