I failed to mention the whole Pac-Mondrian thing when it swept the blogosphere a couple weeks ago and even got some e-mail asking whether I'd seen it. So now it's mentioned, but I don't have anything to add to what Sarah Hromack wrote. I also can't believe that people are taking this so seriously. The Prize Budget for Boys' Web site assures potential buyers that each work is bon ŕ tirer by Tamarind standards. But then you play it, and it's just this Java applet that also comes in a painted cabinet—and as a bunch of other unrelated merch. (A Pac-Mondrian vacuum?) Was the NYT really scratching their heads over whether this is ersatz Pop Art? A "blip," says Sarah—that strikes me as exactly right.
Prize Budget for Boys, Pac-Mondrian [screenshot], 2002.
I still want to buy it, of course.
Posted by Kriston at January 9, 2005 7:52 PMHmm. An unusually ugly, unusually bad version of Pacman that -- aside from an appropriated color scheme -- has nothing to do with Piet Mondrian. This stinks of people who know too much about art knowing too little about videogames. Count me as dreading the inevitable arrival of Malevitch-Tris.
So big no to Pac-Mondrian. This, on the other hand, is the way to make a clever pop artifact.
Posted by: tom at January 9, 2005 9:57 PMNominally, I think the Mondrian piece (Broadway Boogie Woogie, 1940-something) and Pac-Man are supposed to share some kind of grid-traffic movement, but it's hard to say because I don't think it works. I think this is a drunk eureka that has gone too far.
Posted by: Kriston at January 9, 2005 10:17 PMI was pretty unimpressed by it, but I'm not sure you can accuse anyone of taking it "so seriously." Hmmm... beyond Sarah Boxer and the Times, that is:
"In fact, it qualifies as a coherent interpretation of 'Broadway Boogie Woogie.'"
Posted by: Dan at January 10, 2005 11:57 AMDrunk Eureka! Yes! I'm with you all...
(Thanks, Kriston)
Posted by: Sarah at January 10, 2005 12:40 PMNominally, I think the Mondrian piece (Broadway Boogie Woogie, 1940-something) and Pac-Man are supposed to share some kind of grid-traffic movement
Ah. Okay, count me as dumb and/or a phillistine -- I didn't realize this was based on an actual piece (has the copyright expired?). That's what I get for placing myself completely at the mercy of my ARTH102 professor (and not really liking Mondrian enough to remember even his masterpieces). I still don't think PacMondrian's any good, but at least it makes sense.
This isn't the first time geeks have realized that both Mondrian and computers like playing with rectangles -- see here.
Posted by: tom at January 10, 2005 1:59 PMIf I had seen Pac-Mondrian out of context, without knowing what it was called or what it was supposed to be emulating, I would have never thought of Mondrian's painting. So I don't get the hubbub.
Posted by: matty at January 10, 2005 4:36 PMit's a mash-up! it must be hot!
Posted by: drugs at January 10, 2005 9:50 PM