Software as 'Subject' Material

Antoine Schmitt wrote:

> :::::::::5/10/03::::21:09 -0400::::metaphorz:::::::::
> >1. software as application/tool
> > (using someone else's software–often, commercial software)
> > 2. software as medium (raw material)
> > 3. software as target (subject material)
>
> As Andreas said, an artwork that has as a subject the same material
> that it is made of is a very modernist approach. That was 50 years
> ago.
> It does not mean that it is not interesting (litterature about
> litterature, or video about video is interesting), it is just that
> nowadays it seems that this is not what an artistic field tends
> towards anymore. As for what happens nowadays, I dont know…
> –
>

Yes, but 50 years ago, we did not have computer science,
or to be more accurate, computer science was a very
fledgling discipline in the 1950s. There is a difference
between reflecting on a brush, the properties of oil paint
or a palette knife, and reflecting on formal structures in
mathematics and computer science. By "formal structure",
I am including software, code, programs, data structures,
and so forth – i.e., the "stuff" of computing.

This "reflection" can involve utility. That is, the artist
can reinvent or augment ways in which we all do things like
code/data visualization and auralization. This suggests that
the artist can "represent" software, for example. The result
of this representation can range in utility from completely
usable to non-usable, but with aesthetic value.