(tech folks: sometimes it works for me, sometimes not. this one just didn't post or bounce when i sent it? checked my "sent" copy and verified it came from the right e-address, to the list. go figure.)
well, ok, on a technical level, you are absolutely correct. probably you even mean computers creating graphics defaulting to drawing things like straight lines , flat colors, etc. but you bring up some really really important points. it's like curators asking for web art on video. it's not just these media have differences, but the similarities are so ridiculously and totally trivial to a computer (though not at all to that curator with an AV bias). focussing on the details of real paint is trivial to computer art. if the color(s) say "malevich", then that's really all they need to do. comparing them to some other media serves no useful purpose.
while on one hand, computer art and painting are independently methods of making. on the other, it isn't much of a leap of the imagination to understand the metaphor here. the entire notion of making a painting with a computer is too absurd to consider anyone means it literally. as much as the opposite would be silly. it only makes sense to assume the artist means it metaphorically. (my heart IS on fire). to read otherwise is (probably) to adhere to some bygone model.
which is all this seems to be saying. there are plenty of mondrian or pollock generators and some miss levels of what they were doing, while some go beyond. paintings miss levels too. an art student copying some masterpiece in a gallery (am sure we've all done) is hardly the ONLY way to make your "cover version". some art is pretty easily summed up (background=#000000). that doesn't cover every single aspect, but then nothing could. (it does say something that barnett missed in all his pomposity, that he took himself a little too seriously, spent way too much time breathing those fumes).
while tangibility is certainly cool, for me it's just that muscles and nerves are "listening" to their live environment. the mental process of registering color, or texture is not terribly different than registering motion or feeling off balance. all of these things are great resources for work, but no single one is required. at least not to anyone with a broader concept of environment or art, than simply AV. but tangibility doesn't equal art any more than smelliness. on the web, we get a tiny color palette (compared to a well-lit painting). hence, the color is an approximation, but not nearly as important as getting the idea across. in painting, there is no refresh rate. refresh rates are unimportant to painting. but neither colors no refresh rates are at all crucial, though both are welcome, for creating things.
there is no reason to limit "art" to focus on the visual, much less even sensory. interactivity is all about creating experience, not sensory info, the sensory is often an incidental by-product. one that many traditional art viewers/makers/curators commonly refuse to let go of. we CAN make sensory stuff, but we can also be flexible enough to look elsewhere.
Regina Celia Pinto wrote:
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
> To: "listserv Rhizome" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:48 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: How to make a perfect Malevich painting
> using only
> basic HTML code
>
>
> >
> >> <!– this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is –>
> >> <!– http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich –> …"
> >
> > I disagree. It's a copy of a Malevich-ish idea. Not even a copy of
> a
> > Malevich painting. >
>
>
> Yes, you are completely right, we can't do perfect paintings with
> computers. (up to now, perhaps in the future?)
>
> When painting there is a tangible medium - paint, which makes a sloppy
> mess
> in cyan, yellow and magenta. In the case of computers, what we have is
> light
> and pixels, and red, green, blue, a clean art and.a certain limitation
> due
> to the software.
>
> What I think that is important is to explore in digital mediums all
> the
> possibilities of recognized Works of Art, it is a way of continue
> creating
> with that work. It means that the work continues alive. Exactely for
> this
> Creative Commons and Free Art are so important.
>
> Regina
>
>
a lot more than 5 (was about malevich thing)
-
Type: discussion