I think that trying to define whether code is art is impossible. Duchamp proved that anything can be art, dependent only on the intention of an artist. So of course code can be art, but it isn't necesarily.
Code as a material..? In the broad sense of material, I think it is, at least for me. I see code as a means to an end, though of course in reaching that end the code often becomes something that could be perceived as art if presented in a certain context. I usualy call 'code' 'language', as in programming language. This more accurately represents what it is to me; a method of translating human thought an attention to computers, whose main strength and purpose is to process huge amounts of data very rapidly. The ultimate goal of programming languages, for me, is to bridge the gap between human and computer modes of communication. I would hope that eventually computers will do the work of understanding human beings, rather human beings having to learn computer languages--I'm in favor of computers doing the hard work. This way computer and information related art becomes accesible to everyone, rather than being the elitest and arcane field it is now.
I think PD is an important step in bridging the gap between computer and human methods of communication. PD is one step above an actual programming language, lowering the learning curve considerably. PD also facilitates building interfaces with computers that allow laypeople to create art, say, with the wave of their hand (ultrasound or variable resistors or something), or by saying something into a microphone. For me, the art that is created with a PD media installation isn't the installation itself, but what the audience does with it. Thus the code isn't the material, PD isn't the material, what I create with PD and code is the material that the audience uses to create art. But I will admit that I do perceive what I create at each step is also a kind of art, as is PD, as is the syntax of the programming language itself (isn't what the Romans did in recreating Latin a kind of art, or what was done with Esperanto, or SolReSol for that matter?) So then the material being used is rather the human mind that created all of these things.
As for commercial art...
Proprietary software is not artistic: it's like a recording that you "play" over and over, ad nauseam. (We forgot a lot of rock bands because they were boring "one shot deals"). A proprietary software can be used to express and recreate artistic ideas, but it cannot be a work of art in itself, unless you're kinky enough to appreciate assembler code that can't be modified without being accused of felony...
Commercial art is still art, it just works on a different aesthetic. Denying the art used to write ProTools, 3DStudio, Photoshop and other genius commercial programs, is denying Andy Warhol and his ideas of pop art. I won't argue that computer art has entirely depended on things like Photoshop, but I definitely believe that computer art would be in a very different place today if Photoshop had never existed. Just because it is commercial doesn't mean that it is not art. Just because The Adventures of Monkey Island or Doom, were sold for money, doesn't mean they weren't great pieces of computer art, and very influential on the world of computer art. Even without us being able to tear them apart and look at their code, they are still valid works of pop art. Sometimes an artist, for whatever reason, wants to keep his/her methods secret ( http://www.4dart.com ). Would you argue that, because you cannot know exactly how Van Gogh used his brushes, his works are not art? So Micro$oft can be art too, even though we base consumers are not privelidged enough to view its haloed code (<- a bit of sarcasm, but it's still true).
Just a thought or two.
-Ian
Hello Ian.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:40:07AM -0700, 0 wrote:
I think that trying to define whether code is art is impossible. Duchamp proved that anything can be art, dependent only on the intention of an artist. So of course code can be art, but it isn't necesarily.
So there: you defined that code can be art.
a method of translating human thought an attention to computers, whose main strength and purpose is to process huge amounts of data very rapidly.
Computers have no attention and don't care. People who program and use computers should care.
The ultimate goal of programming languages, for me, is to bridge the gap between human and computer modes of communication.
Computers are not communicating. Humans are, sometimes through the use of computers.
I would hope that eventually computers will do the work of understanding human beings, rather human beings having to learn computer languages --
Humans can barely understand each others, and computers have no ways to understand. It is a faculty of intelligence, not a fancy algorithm. Artificial intelligence is the one that makes some of us believe computers can or should be equal or superior to humans.
I'm in favor of computers doing the hard work.
I'm in favor of humans getting a hold on their lifes, even more regarding hard work. We should not surrender knowledge of computing, and make sure it is widely accepted and public. Computers are tools: we know about them, not them about us.
Computer languages were all designed by humans for humans, not for machines by machines. Computers have no personaes, they're not like individuals that we can enslave. Computers are machines, and we are completely in charge when using them. We are responsible.
This way computer and information related art becomes accesible to everyone, rather than being the elitest and arcane field it is now.
And which arcane elit will bring us this magic?
I think PD is an important step in bridging the gap between computer and human methods of communication. PD is one step above an actual programming language, lowering the learning curve considerably.
PD is a different programming language... It makes us think in a certain way. PD can be above other programming languages, but not in all situations.
For me, the art that is created with a PD media installation isn't the installation itself, but what the audience does with it.
"Static" art, as opposed to interactive art, also allow people to do what they want, but in their heads... What's fun about interactive art is the fake dialog between the machine and the user. Installations are art works, but with an audience that sometimes interact artistically.
Thus the code isn't the material, PD isn't the material, what I create with PD and code is the material that the audience uses to create art.
You're giving too much credit to the audience; they are mostly looking, even when interacting. Creation takes time and reflexion. Most installations are like gadgets that the audience play with, not really create, although some interactive experiences can induce artistic ideas.
But I will admit that I do perceive what I create at each step is also a kind of art, as is PD, as is the syntax of the programming language itself
Art is the result of expressing specific ideas. The artsy feeling we get when using fancy tools is the satisfaction of understanding, using and creating. These steps are like tiny "art units", but "Art" mostly happens before and after using tools, to create works that we can share with others.
Commercial art is still art, it just works on a different aesthetic.
It's called "Industrial Design". It's the art of embedding devices into plastic shells adapted to local cultures.
Denying the art used to write ProTools, 3DStudio, Photoshop and other genius commercial programs, is denying Andy Warhol and his ideas of pop art.
Lipton C++? Neo-Dadaism programming? Sure, people use what they have to create, but those genius tools are not own by their users. We can go a step further and build our tools, on a individual and collective level.
I won't argue that computer art has entirely depended on things like Photoshop, but I definitely believe that computer art would be in a very different place today if Photoshop had never existed.
Photoshop is one incarnation of similar commercial or free software. Adobe have no moral right on image manipulation, even if they say so. Our world would be similar without Photoshop; the application would be called "Digital Calotype" or "The Gimp"...
Just because it is commercial doesn't mean that it is not art.
Commercial art is designed to be sold "en masse"; this is the art of consumerism. It strongly shapes our collective culture.
Just because The Adventures of Monkey Island or Doom, were sold for money, doesn't mean they weren't great pieces of computer art, and very influential on the world of computer art.
Very influential. Quake3 -> Virtual World of Art (http://www.workspace-unlimited.org/). This project is based on a commercial game, but is possible because of free software. This is a good example of pop art.
Even without us being able to tear them apart and look at their code, they are still valid works of pop art.
Commercial art is made to invalidate non-commercial art, and also itself because of over-exposure. It is nihilistic and addictive, to make people hate art and accept what they're forced to look at, listen to, read, and use, until it doesn't work anymore, so they can buy "new" art.
That's why sampling and recuperation became so important, because people need to deconstruct and reshape things. Commercial art always recreate the same things, and creators always deconstruct those same things, hoping to create something else. There's joy in repetition.
Sometimes an artist, for whatever reason, wants to keep his/her methods secret ( http://www.4dart.com ).
I don't believe art has more value when artistic processes are kept secret. I know about "holovideography", and I enjoyed Anima. I used it for an interactive installation before I saw Anima, and I don't think I stole 4dart and others that explained me this old trick.
Would you argue that, because you cannot know exactly how Van Gogh used his brushes, his works are not art? So Micro$oft can be
I prefer to know that I can build my own brushes and use them in any ways, not the Van Gogh or the M$ way. I might never take the opportunity to build tools and/or create art myself, but I'm concerned about those issues.
Just a thought or two.
Thanks Ian.
Marc
I think most computer languages are designed to bridge the gap between
human and computer, and I think that this is why they tend to have many
problems as languages for the expressions of ideas. When designing
computer languages, we have reached the point where computers are
powerful and cheap enough that we can ignore the implementation details
and just design languages purely for the expression of ideas, _then_
make those languages control computers.
For me, I see elements of this in SmallTalk, Lisp, and Max/Pd (I am
sure there are others, but this is from my experience). These have
their problems of course, but they have key elements. SmallTalk and
Lisp use one basic method of organization and apply it to _everything_.
Compare this to C++, where you think about numbers totally differently
than objects (do you think in doubles, floats, unsigned ints?). Max/Pd
do a pretty good job of bringing spatial and graphic elements in,
expanding the language beyond mere text.
So I'd like to see a language designed purely for expressing ideas
implemented to run on computers.
.hc
On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 14:40 Europe/Brussels, 0 wrote:
I think that trying to define whether code is art is impossible.
Duchamp proved that anything can be art, dependent only on the
intention of an artist. So of course code can be art, but it isn't
necesarily.Code as a material..? In the broad sense of material, I think it is,
at least for me. I see code as a means to an end, though of course in
reaching that end the code often becomes something that could be
perceived as art if presented in a certain context. I usualy call
'code' 'language', as in programming language. This more accurately
represents what it is to me; a method of translating human thought an
attention to computers, whose main strength and purpose is to process
huge amounts of data very rapidly. The ultimate goal of programming
languages, for me, is to bridge the gap between human and computer
modes of communication. I would hope that eventually computers will do
the work of understanding human beings, rather human beings having to
learn computer languages--I'm in favor of computers doing the hard
work. This way computer and information related art becomes accesible
to everyone, rather than being the elitest and arcane field it is now.I think PD is an important step in bridging the gap between computer
and human methods of communication. PD is one step above an actual
programming language, lowering the learning curve considerably. PD
also facilitates building interfaces with computers that allow
laypeople to create art, say, with the wave of their hand (ultrasound
or variable resistors or something), or by saying something into a
microphone. For me, the art that is created with a PD media
installation isn't the installation itself, but what the audience does
with it. Thus the code isn't the material, PD isn't the material, what
I create with PD and code is the material that the audience uses to
create art. But I will admit that I do perceive what I create at each
step is also a kind of art, as is PD, as is the syntax of the
programming language itself (isn't what the Romans did in recreating
Latin a kind of art, or what was done with Esperanto, or SolReSol for
that matter?) So then the material being used is rather the human mind
that created all of these things.As for commercial art...
Proprietary software is not artistic: it's like a recording that you "play" over and over, ad nauseam. (We forgot a lot of rock bands because they were boring "one shot deals"). A proprietary software can be used to express and recreate artistic ideas, but it cannot be a work of art in itself, unless you're kinky enough to appreciate assembler code that can't be modified without being accused of felony...
Commercial art is still art, it just works on a different aesthetic.
Denying the art used to write ProTools, 3DStudio, Photoshop and other
genius commercial programs, is denying Andy Warhol and his ideas of
pop art. I won't argue that computer art has entirely depended on
things like Photoshop, but I definitely believe that computer art
would be in a very different place today if Photoshop had never
existed. Just because it is commercial doesn't mean that it is not
art. Just because The Adventures of Monkey Island or Doom, were sold
for money, doesn't mean they weren't great pieces of computer art, and
very influential on the world of computer art. Even without us being
able to tear them apart and look at their code, they are still valid
works of pop art. Sometimes an artist, for whatever reason, wants to
keep his/her methods secret ( http://www.4dart.com ). Would you argue
that, because you cannot know exactly how Van Gogh used his brushes,
his works are not art? So Micro$oft can be art too, even though we
base consumers are not privelidged enough to view its haloed code (<-
a bit of sarcasm, but it's still true).Just a thought or two.
-Ian
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away
to benefit those who profit from scarcity."
-John Gilmore
-
0 -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Marc Lavallée