on Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:37:16 -0500 Marc =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lavall=E9e?= odradek@videotron.ca wrote:
There's no osmosis between code and the art it can support. I have worked enough with artists to >understand that software and machines are not considered artistic when used to create art.
that depends (on the ppl involved, context, process, etc). some [artists/developers] are engaged in [programming/artmaking] equally, others more or less so in any direction. then there are the collaborations which may be more or less collaborative.
Programmers abused by artists are not artists. Maybe working "with" artists makes a difference, but I >don't believe it's very significant, only more cheerful.
this issue of abuse vs collaboration is important + so inflected by our social-technological perspectives. some ppl feel that the idea of cooperation between separate specialists (i.e. the "artist" + "programmer") can only lead to inequities + exploitations while others find situations like this can be equitable. i suppose it all has to do w/the [goals/aspirations/intent/attitudes] of those involved + the way the interactions are [framed/contextualized].
PD is for me a work of art; I don't really care how it's being used, but since art can be created with the >help of PD, it makes it even more interesting, not more artistic. I used PD for automation more than art, >and for the joy of programming.
thats a wonderful articulation. i am personally very interested in tool-building as an artform when the [toolset/codebase/system] itself is considered an artwork as well as having the ability to function as an authoring environment for [more/further/associated/independent] works. jonCates /**
<coreDeveloper>
- http://www.criticalartware.net
- joncates@criticalartware.net
**/