I am intrigued by the possibilities of appropriation in Installation Art. On page 40 Nicholas Negroponte explores how, "Computers and art can bring out the worst in each other when they first meet" He goes on to talk about the balance of the two and how sometimes the medium distracts from the art. Then the author mentions that the technology is not so important in installation art, but rather how technology is exploited, appropriated, and exposed for what it is. It's limits are explored. I thought it was interesting that something (film, video) that at one point was made to capture the essence of something, to preserve memories, to share experiences, is one thing that cannot possibly do so. It can only trigger emotions perhaps, which is possibly done more strikingly with art. So technology can perhaps capture something real, but is also the most artificial way of doing so. Many artists seem obsessed with exploring/proving artificiality.

What is curious about Installation Art for me is that the emphasis isn't neccesarily on an art piece or object. It is on the surroundings, the process, what is missing, what is alluded to. The actual installation is merely a trigger, and the response that it evokes is the final piece?