greetings
if i understand you, one of your indirect points is that artists need to get more scientific. this seems correct to me [art has always been practiced by leading scientists, think of einstein and his violin]. and at the same time, this does not mean to ignore imagination- it means you must do everything.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:
This is a classic example of the ongoing (mis)communication(s) between artists and scientists. And far too many artists lack the training to engage with the real media of their work and instead hire technicians to realize it for them.
as most of us know, traditional artistic training does not cover what tech savvy artists need to know:
- how to program [something]
- how is information stored and retrieved using [relational] data bases
- what is the network like both as artistic medium [there is some
activity here] and for propaganda purposes
and for all artists:
- what is the role of money in art culture [a subsidiary to: what is
the role of money in my life] ?
but learning how to do art is hard enough. and understanding technology from a tools perspective is hard enough. so why is it that any artist will take this upon themselves?
because it's necessary to their art works. [that's enough]