Henry and Michael endorse Douglas Englebart's efforts to support higher-bandwidth expression "in the widest possible meaning", and then criticize systems which "radically restrict what counts as acceptable input" to "multiple choices, not personal expression". Idea Futures, specifically, is a "numerically grounded, expressively retarded system ... where everything is reduced to dollars".
I emailed Henry, saying
Idea Futures also increases total expressiveness. Anyone can submit any claim to bet on, a claim made anywhere by anyone. Numbers, and yes dollars, get associated with these claims by, and anyone can influence these numbers. With Idea Futures, people can conveniently say more than they could without it. So why do you call this "Lowestcommondenominatorware"?Henry replied (on Jan. 9, 1996) that he
will refrain from a critique of Idea Futures until I have reread "Could Gambling Save Science" I will try to do this in the next few days and get back to you.I haven't heard from him yet. Henry did explain that
the remark about "lowestcommondenominatorware" was directed at the jury's statement that "Groupmindware like Ringo++ or Idea Futures weaves our sensibility and our intelligences together in a seamless tapestry of intelligences and feelings."which he thought was an overstatement. (I agree.) He also explained that
new tools give new means of expression, but within given power relations they can be used to prevent real expressiveness.It seems to me that Henry and Michael don't really dislike Idea Futures -- they just don't think it is great art. I will defer to artists to decide what is and isn't art.