Is code the next art, or the next material?
I dont know what you mean by material. I could intrepret material as I do the matrial paint: then there is nothing new about the material. Code has been around for years in the form of stories, or man ual tasks, for example knitting. I could intrepret material as medium: then code is just the nex fad, like capris pants or push-up bras... I think its more than that.
Code for me is a more compleate way to communicate idea, and to develop idea.
First there were words, sculpture, images, performances, then came video as the next step, now we have code and the web as the most complete means to translate and realize idea (IMHO of course). I see the web as a society of (somewhat) self orginizing individuals and code as the texts/performances/video/audio quanta of this society. The very essence of communication in this environment.
For example, many would agree that you could replace the above with 10 echo "BLA"; 20 goto 10;
But isint that code more appropo then saying I talked a lot about nothing much?
I just think code is more than material. Its a sturcture and sometimes a simple mind. But then again I like to think of us as more than the material which comprises us...
Also, about rhizome: they have free fridays, so thats why google was able to crawl rhizome.
My 2 cents + assorted pocket change.
Lastly, thanks Yves for you package. I imagine (I havent got pd working correctly on my linux laptop) that it will be worth all the work that you put into it. Opensource coders should get tax breaks, or just extra kisses, or cuts in lines at disnyland, or something. They kick arse! (can I say that here?)
-thewade
hi,
i think that pieces produced with a tool inherits from the aesthetics of this tool, so doing code is also participating to the art work somehow.
besides, some code can be considered as art ( www.runme.org ) although i also think sometimes it only pretends it is and this "code art" fashion has gone too far.
Lastly, thanks Yves for you package. I imagine (I havent got pd working correctly on my linux laptop) that it will be worth all the work that you put into it. Opensource coders should get tax breaks, or just extra kisses, or cuts in lines at disnyland, or something. They kick arse! (can I say that here?)
i think that's the reward for open source coders out there and it's way enough ( disneyland can wait )) ) ))
cheers, sevy
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:48:07PM -0700, thewade wrote:
Code for me is a more compleate way to communicate idea, and to develop idea.
Art can be done through any medium, including programming, as long as your target audience can understand ideas expressed through this specific medium. So let's talk about code as art.
Programmers can read and understand "nice" code, but there's a lot of beautiful code that says nothing. Esthetics is not enough to be art in itself. The medium is not the message. For me, art should be "political" as much as beautiful. Code per se is not artistic, but it can express artistic ideas. Free software, for example, can be artistic, partly because of its agenda, and because we can appreciate ideas expressed through human readable code.
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...
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. 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.
I just think code is more than material.
It's not much different, except that the ideas expressed by code can live in different materials. Good copies of famous paintings usually have the same impact than the originals. Software are easier to copy, but only free software can become works of art because we can read, understand and reinterpret it.
Code is not more than material. Velasquez did his stuff the right way.
Coding a Velasquez painting would not bring "more", although it could be
beautiful. The more I see Siggraph demos, for example, the more I get
bored, because the emphasis is on the beauty of techniques expressed
through code, not the message expressed on the screen. Sometimes we get
both fabulous techniques and meaningful messages, but Art exists when a
message is not blurred by its beautiful technique. That's why "ugly" and
conceptual art can be so strong: because there's no beautiful technique.
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.
-- Marc
-
Marc Lavallée -
thewade -
Yves Degoyon