html is extensively derived before it ever attempts to mean something else, whether what it means are words or images or transporting links to other words and images
painting draws not on ordered language for the derivation of that which it represents, but on the material world. Confusingly, painting does this by using simplified, distilled elements of the material world as well as fully formed, unadulterated things within spaces...the vision of reality or perceived reality
html uses distilled elements of the material world as well, but these elements have been reconfigured into what we recognize as technology. Computers, servers, wires and cords. All of these contribute to the formation of a line of html text that represents another thing (image, thought)
a pile of dirt mixed with water or oil is as technological as a tangle of cords
but html also draws upon the material world to make the tools of represntation (the internet, cords, computers, servers) as well as upon the material world as a vision or thought in order to represent
both painting and html look downward to pulverize and reconfigure elements of the material world to make the tools of representation. both painting and html look outward to capture those visions of the material world, left intact, which must be represented using the tools made by pulverizing other elements of the material world.
We entertain ourselves with everything and always have. New technologies are inherently entertaining because their representations are often novel in appearance or function somehow. TVs and iphones, etc. Painting was novel a long time ago. Oil painting using reflective, camera-like technologies devised to seize images for rendering at one point shocked spectators with its life-like appearance. Before that, christian iconography transported the spectator using many of the same visual tools at work in movies and even in novels. According to abstraction, minimalism, and Conceptual Art, the value of a work of art is not in its ability to entertain. art should raise serious philosophial questions rather than make people laugh or smile or reach a state of ecstasy brought on by some sublime depiction. Not sure where I stand here...the more imagistic the work, the more it tends to entertain...the more it moves, the more it entertains...
what happens when I already know what I want someone to feel and or believe about something I've made before I show it to people? what role does narrative construction play in art that entertains, versus art that philosophizes?
can something brand new be totally reduced? does it make sense to strip something like virtual reality of all its sexiness, thinking of things like latency...latency shows the actual function of vr, like "incorrect" proportion shows the actual function of drawing. glitch art does this. representation seems prone to the illusory in some ways. initially, it always seems to seek to approximate some sort of experience.