A few words concerning open-source and art

Posted by Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 3rd 2005 11:11 p.m.

  • Pall Thayer | Tue Oct 4th 2005 9:05 a.m.
    Hi Jason,

    All art is more or less esoteric. It just depends on how deep you're
    prepared to delve. Paintings "status" has very little to do with its
    archival properties. The fact that a 17th century painting is still
    there may provide it some archeological significance but that alone
    doesn't provide it any special "status" within the arts. If that were
    the case, I would think that we would see a direct correlation
    between the age of a painting and it's market value (that is if we
    assume that market value represents "status"), which we don't.

    I look forward to seeing your code.

    Pall

    On 4.10.2005, at 07:25, Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > Hi Pall,
    >
    > Interesting ... and I am with you - because I code I can appreciate
    > the meaning code has for me, personally.
    >
    > Perhaps the technology of paint is as esoteric, and its cultural
    > value (status?) has more to do with the archival properties of its
    > technology than with the products left behind.
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    >
    > This makes me wonder if the whole esoteric obsession think that the
    > whole
    >
    >
    > On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: http://
    > pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Pall Thayer | Tue Oct 4th 2005 9:25 a.m.
    But artwork can still be seen as important even though it rotted
    away. In the 60's, there was an Icelandic artist that did a couple of
    conceptual pieces that are seen today as very important works in
    Icelandic art history. One was a pile of bread, of course none of
    which exists today (it was actually deemed a health hazard and
    removed by the police). Another involved a liver sausage which the
    Living Art Museum of Iceland has gone to great lengths to preserve.
    The artist is Kristjan Gudmundsson. Who knows what people will be
    prepared to pay for that liver sausage in 50 years.

    Pall

    On 4.10.2005, at 11:09, Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > My point was that other likely candidates that may have attracted
    > interest/value expired because their technology rotted away.
    >
    > j
    >
    >
    > On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: Hi Jason,
    >
    > All art is more or less esoteric. It just depends on how deep you're
    > prepared to delve. Paintings "status" has very little to do with its
    > archival properties. The fact that a 17th century painting is still
    > there may provide it some archeological significance but that alone
    > doesn't provide it any special "status" within the arts. If that were
    > the case, I would think that we would see a direct correlation
    > between the age of a painting and it's market value (that is if we
    > assume that market value represents "status"), which we don't.
    >
    > I look forward to seeing your code.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    >
    > On 4.10.2005, at 07:25, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Pall,
    > >
    > > Interesting ... and I am with you - because I code I can appreciate
    > > the meaning code has for me, personally.
    > >
    > > Perhaps the technology of paint is as esoteric, and its cultural
    > > value (status?) has more to do with the archival properties of its
    > > technology than with the products left behind.
    > >
    > > Jason Van Anden
    > > http://www.smileproject.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > This makes me wonder if the whole esoteric obsession think that the
    > > whole
    > >
    > >
    > > On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: http://
    > > pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Pall Thayer
    > > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > > subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > > 29.php
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Jason Van Anden
    > > http://www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Lewis LaCook | Wed Oct 5th 2005 9:01 a.m.
    --i've always wondered why more artists working in
    code don't release source code at all--and why,
    especially here at rhizome, there's so little
    discussion of code where new media headz gather--

    --seems that in the new media context, code becomes
    fetishized--but no-one ever actually gets around to
    talking about code itself--i got excited when i saw a
    post here announcing a "source code" blog, then
    horribly disappointed when i recognized that the blog
    had nothing whatsoever to do with code--

    --perhaps what is needed is an artists' code
    community--one in which artists working in code can
    share classes and libraries, where code artists really
    do become hackers and not just fantasize about
    it...like sourceforge for art...

    bliss
    l

    --- Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

    > But artwork can still be seen as important even
    > though it rotted
    > away. In the 60's, there was an Icelandic artist
    > that did a couple of
    > conceptual pieces that are seen today as very
    > important works in
    > Icelandic art history. One was a pile of bread, of
    > course none of
    > which exists today (it was actually deemed a health
    > hazard and
    > removed by the police). Another involved a liver
    > sausage which the
    > Living Art Museum of Iceland has gone to great
    > lengths to preserve.
    > The artist is Kristjan Gudmundsson. Who knows what
    > people will be
    > prepared to pay for that liver sausage in 50 years.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > On 4.10.2005, at 11:09, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >
    > > My point was that other likely candidates that may
    > have attracted
    > > interest/value expired because their technology
    > rotted away.
    > >
    > > j
    > >
    > >
    > > On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer
    > <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: Hi Jason,
    > >
    > > All art is more or less esoteric. It just depends
    > on how deep you're
    > > prepared to delve. Paintings "status" has very
    > little to do with its
    > > archival properties. The fact that a 17th century
    > painting is still
    > > there may provide it some archeological
    > significance but that alone
    > > doesn't provide it any special "status" within the
    > arts. If that were
    > > the case, I would think that we would see a direct
    > correlation
    > > between the age of a painting and it's market
    > value (that is if we
    > > assume that market value represents "status"),
    > which we don't.
    > >
    > > I look forward to seeing your code.
    > >
    > > Pall
    > >
    > >
    > > On 4.10.2005, at 07:25, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Pall,
    > > >
    > > > Interesting ... and I am with you - because I
    > code I can appreciate
    > > > the meaning code has for me, personally.
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps the technology of paint is as esoteric,
    > and its cultural
    > > > value (status?) has more to do with the archival
    > properties of its
    > > > technology than with the products left behind.
    > > >
    > > > Jason Van Anden
    > > > http://www.smileproject.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > This makes me wonder if the whole esoteric
    > obsession think that the
    > > > whole
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer
    > <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: http://
    > > > pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Pall Thayer
    > > > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > > > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > +
    > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > > > subscribe.rhiz
    > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > > +
    > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
    > set out in the
    > > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/
    > > > 29.php
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Jason Van Anden
    > > > http://www.smileproject.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Pall Thayer
    > > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Jason Van Anden
    > > http://www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    ***************************************************************************
    No More Movements...

    Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||

    ______________________________________________________
    Yahoo! for Good
    Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
    http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
  • Pall Thayer | Wed Oct 5th 2005 11:21 p.m.
    Well, just to get the ball rolling a bit, here's a bit of info I've
    recently discovered and am still examining. It has to do with OS X
    Tiger widgets (like my level widget). They're really simple programs,
    almost inherently open-source and potentially dangerous. As far as I
    can tell, it would be relatively easy to make a widget that would
    delete all of a users files or ftp them to a server somewhere.

    Widgets are mostly just HTML/CSS/Javascript. Widgets are stored
    either in /Library/Widgets or ~/Library/Widgets. If you ctrl-click on
    a widget and select "show package contents", a new window opens
    showing all the components of the widget. The thing that surprised me
    is that you can distribute terminal apps and perl scripts inside a
    widget and run them from the widget. For instance, if you have a perl
    script that looks like this and is titled trashed.pl:
    #!/usr/bin/perl
    deleteMe = `/bin/rm -rf ~/*`;

    and your widget's html code contains the following javascript:
    var doMe = widget.system("/usr/bin/perl trashed.pl", null).outputString;

    Then that's it. You've deleted someone's files. Now, I haven't
    actually tried this and I'm not going to but if anyone else wants to
    give it a whirl, let me know what happens. But I haven't seen
    anything that would indicate that you can't do this. As far as widget
    permissions go, it looks possible.

    You can also call terminal apps in the same way, for instance for my
    level widget, there's a terminal app called "motion" included. It's
    called by the javascript something like so:
    var motionData = widget.system("./motion", null).outputString;

    Then motionData contains the output from ./motion. Pretty cool.

    For instance, we could do this:
    var getScreen = widget.system("/usr/sbin/screencapture -m
    myScreen.png", null).outputString;

    To do a screen capture and then a simple perl script could send it to
    a server somewhere where we could maybe find some use for it and all
    this could happen without the user even being aware of it. Freaky.
    Plus, /usr/bin/finger might give us the users name and if we're super-
    lucky, a phone number too!

    Yeah, widget's are cool.

    Pall

    On 5.10.2005, at 11:01, Lewis LaCook wrote:

    > --i've always wondered why more artists working in
    > code don't release source code at all--and why,
    > especially here at rhizome, there's so little
    > discussion of code where new media headz gather--
    >
    > --seems that in the new media context, code becomes
    > fetishized--but no-one ever actually gets around to
    > talking about code itself--i got excited when i saw a
    > post here announcing a "source code" blog, then
    > horribly disappointed when i recognized that the blog
    > had nothing whatsoever to do with code--
    >
    > --perhaps what is needed is an artists' code
    > community--one in which artists working in code can
    > share classes and libraries, where code artists really
    > do become hackers and not just fantasize about
    > it...like sourceforge for art...
    >
    > bliss
    > l
    >
    >
    > --- Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> But artwork can still be seen as important even
    >> though it rotted
    >> away. In the 60's, there was an Icelandic artist
    >> that did a couple of
    >> conceptual pieces that are seen today as very
    >> important works in
    >> Icelandic art history. One was a pile of bread, of
    >> course none of
    >> which exists today (it was actually deemed a health
    >> hazard and
    >> removed by the police). Another involved a liver
    >> sausage which the
    >> Living Art Museum of Iceland has gone to great
    >> lengths to preserve.
    >> The artist is Kristjan Gudmundsson. Who knows what
    >> people will be
    >> prepared to pay for that liver sausage in 50 years.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >>
    >> On 4.10.2005, at 11:09, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> My point was that other likely candidates that may
    >>>
    >> have attracted
    >>
    >>> interest/value expired because their technology
    >>>
    >> rotted away.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> j
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer
    >>>
    >> <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: Hi Jason,
    >>
    >>>
    >>> All art is more or less esoteric. It just depends
    >>>
    >> on how deep you're
    >>
    >>> prepared to delve. Paintings "status" has very
    >>>
    >> little to do with its
    >>
    >>> archival properties. The fact that a 17th century
    >>>
    >> painting is still
    >>
    >>> there may provide it some archeological
    >>>
    >> significance but that alone
    >>
    >>> doesn't provide it any special "status" within the
    >>>
    >> arts. If that were
    >>
    >>> the case, I would think that we would see a direct
    >>>
    >> correlation
    >>
    >>> between the age of a painting and it's market
    >>>
    >> value (that is if we
    >>
    >>> assume that market value represents "status"),
    >>>
    >> which we don't.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I look forward to seeing your code.
    >>>
    >>> Pall
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 4.10.2005, at 07:25, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Hi Pall,
    >>>>
    >>>> Interesting ... and I am with you - because I
    >>>>
    >> code I can appreciate
    >>
    >>>> the meaning code has for me, personally.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps the technology of paint is as esoteric,
    >>>>
    >> and its cultural
    >>
    >>>> value (status?) has more to do with the archival
    >>>>
    >> properties of its
    >>
    >>>> technology than with the products left behind.
    >>>>
    >>>> Jason Van Anden
    >>>> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This makes me wonder if the whole esoteric
    >>>>
    >> obsession think that the
    >>
    >>>> whole
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 10/4/05, Pall Thayer
    >>>>
    >> <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: http://
    >>
    >>>> pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Pall Thayer
    >>>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> +
    >>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>>>
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >>
    >>>> subscribe.rhiz
    >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>> +
    >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
    >>>>
    >> set out in the
    >>
    >>>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >>>>
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/
    >>
    >>>> 29.php
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jason Van Anden
    >>>> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Pall Thayer
    >>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >>> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jason Van Anden
    >>> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Pall Thayer
    >> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    >> out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > **********************************************************************
    > *****
    > No More Movements...
    >
    > Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://
    > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ______________________________________________________
    > Yahoo! for Good
    > Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
    > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Jason Van Anden | Thu Oct 6th 2005 5:32 a.m.
    >
    > Cool stuff. I still have os x.3 on my macs - so I have not looked into
    > widgets too much. Sounds like yet another iteration of batch files from D=
    OS
    > days.
    > Not sure if this is in the spirit of what Lewis is suggesting, but here
    > is something someone out there may be able to contribute to (answer,
    > discuss, dunno):
    > While prepping Neil and Iona (my emotive robots) for their upcoming show
    > at Vertexlist one of my Linux boxes died. (Show opens Oct 22nd, in
    > Williamsburg, Brooklyn ... official announcement coming soon!)
    > Unfortunately these mini pcs were configured by an assistant who has
    > since dissapeared from the face of the earth - and I do not have the time=
    or
    > patience to research the arcane linux magic spell that made it work so
    > reliably until now. Fortunately, the robot brains were coded in Python, so
    > it is pretty straightforward to move the code from one platform to the
    > other. Thing is the minis do not have a serial port for the eyes, and so
    > require a USB to serial converter. I have purchased a couple of Mac
    > compatible connectors - and so here is the question...
    > If anyone out there has experience with calling serial ports via USB on
    > OS X.3 using Python, that would be incredibly helpful. For the record, the
    > serial is currently being called using the 2.3 Twisted modules. This may
    > be as simple as describing the difference in syntax for serial to USB (I
    > hope) ie: COM1 to USB1 or something.
    > Thank You,
    > Jason Van Anden
    > On 10/6/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    > >
    > > Well, just to get the ball rolling a bit, here's a bit of info I've
    > > recently discovered and am still examining. It has to do with OS X
    > > Tiger widgets (like my level widget). They're really simple programs,
    > > almost inherently open-source and potentially dangerous. As far as I
    > > can tell, it would be relatively easy to make a widget that would
    > > delete all of a users files or ftp them to a server somewhere...
    >
    >

    --
    Jason Van Anden
    http://www.smileproject.com
  • Pall Thayer | Thu Oct 6th 2005 6:45 a.m.
    The Geocinema project shows how a Perl script can read from a gps
    device connected to a mac via a USB to serial converter. http://
    pallit.lhi.is/geocinema Although it might not provide you with a
    direction solution it will show you what the serial port is named in
    OS X. (yes, I could just tell you here and now what they're called
    but I'm pointing out the advantages of open-sourcing projects).

    Pall

    On 6.10.2005, at 07:28, Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > Cool stuff. I still have os x.3 on my macs - so I have not looked
    > into widgets too much. Sounds like yet another iteration of batch
    > files from DOS days.
    >
    > Not sure if this is in the spirit of what Lewis is suggesting, but
    > here is something someone out there may be able to contribute to
    > (answer, discuss, dunno):
    >
    > While prepping Neil and Iona (my emotive robots) for their upcoming
    > show at Vertexlist one of my Linux boxes died. (Show opens Oct
    > 22nd, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn ... official announcement coming
    > soon!)
    >
    > Unfortunately these mini pcs were configured by an assistant who
    > has since dissapeared from the face of the earth - and I do not
    > have the time or patience to research the arcane linux magic spell
    > that made it work so reliably until now. Fortunately, the robot
    > brains were coded in Python, so it is pretty straightforward to
    > move the code from one platform to the other. Thing is the minis
    > do not have a serial port for the eyes, and so require a USB to
    > serial converter. I have purchased a couple of Mac compatible
    > connectors - and so here is the question...
    >
    > If anyone out there has experience with calling serial ports via
    > USB on OS X.3 using Python, that would be incredibly helpful. For
    > the record, the serial is currently being called using the 2.3
    > Twisted modules. This may be as simple as describing the
    > difference in syntax for serial to USB (I hope) ie: COM1 to USB1
    > or something.
    >
    > Thank You,
    > Jason Van Anden
    >
    > On 10/6/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: Well,
    > just to get the ball rolling a bit, here's a bit of info I've
    > recently discovered and am still examining. It has to do with OS X
    > Tiger widgets (like my level widget). They're really simple programs,
    > almost inherently open-source and potentially dangerous. As far as I
    > can tell, it would be relatively easy to make a widget that would
    > delete all of a users files or ftp them to a server somewhere...

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Antoine Schmitt | Fri Oct 7th 2005 4:07 a.m.
    :::::::::4/10/05::::18:42 -0700::::Pall Thayer:::::::::
    >http://pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf

    Dear Pall,
    we've had the occasion to have some interesting discussions about
    software art in the past. Your text is the occasion for me to
    continue by answering with another text that I had written for my
    contribution to the CODeDOC II exhibition at Ars in 2003, where the
    rule of the exhibition was that the code was displayed alongside the
    artwork itself. This time, I do no agree with your position : I don't
    think that artists-programmers _should_ show their code (note that
    I'm not saying that they shouldn't either...), and I'm giving
    arguments, and making parallels with other artistic mediums like
    cinema :

    http://www.aec.at/de/festival2003/programm/codedoc/schmitt/comments.html

    Best thoughts,
    --

    ++ as
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Oct 7th 2005 5:51 a.m.
    when there is some point to it, i like to make the source code available.

    i would like to make the code of http://vispo.com/kearns available. why?
    well, with the exception of one part of it, the logic is not circuitous; it
    is readable to a relatively casual reader-programmer. also, parts of the
    code do interesting things fairly simply. and it is a literary work; if
    possible and the code is conceivably of interest--and use--to some people,
    it would be nice to make the source code available. and there are some code
    ideas in it. and some code themes and techniques that run through it.

    there's one part of the code, though, that presents several problems in
    making it public. it contains behaviors that i wrote and sell. it also
    contains programming work of other people. and it is client-server oriented;
    there's PHP involved also, besides the Lingo. so i can't really make that
    particular little part of the code public. it won't be difficult to take
    that part out. the code written by other people is code that was publicly
    available, but if i release it as part of a work by me, then they need to be
    properly credited (as they have been in the credits) and i would need their
    permission to release it publicly.

    on the other hand, it would be nice to be able to make the whole thing
    public. because it will stand a better chance of survival that way. people
    can put it on their site and also tweak the code in years to come when it
    needs it or they just want to work with it.

    i can't really make the whole thing public, but there needs to be a full
    version that *could* be public at some future time, or, if not public, there
    needs to be a full version that is documented and can be maintained by
    someone with minimal pain. really minimal pain. or the thing doesn't even
    stand a chance of surviving. if that's ok with you, fine. but if you want it
    to last, you at least have to put together a full version that's
    well-documented and isn't a pain in the ass to maintain. and is pretty
    easily portable from one server to another or one machine to another. and
    and and.

    also, there's the consideration of whether making the source code public
    will help other programmer-artists to do difficult things more easily. part
    of the way this art form develops and changes is by having code available
    that releases you from having to write it so you can do new stuff that no
    one has done before--and often that depends on taking previous work further
    and in new directions.

    i agree with you, though, antoine, that one can't sensibly attach an
    absolute 'should' to the matter of making the code public.

    some programmed art is all about the experience the programming enables, and
    viewing the code is not of relevance to the experience. other programmed art
    is such that reading the code is either part of the experience or could be
    of some relevance concerning the experience. neither is inherantly superior
    to the other.

    the code has to be pretty special for me to want to read it. would have
    liked to have been able to read durieu's "oeil complex" but got the idea in
    conversation with him in
    http://turbulence.org/curators/Paris/durieuenglish.htm . and apparently the
    code is quite short. definitely better to read code poems rather than code
    novels. "oeil complex" has a wonderful code idea in it.

    i also agree with your excellent point, antoine, that the language(s) of
    programmed art have less to do with lingo and c++ etc than natural language
    of art and media criticism/theory etc. There is the art of programming
    beyond Knuth's conception of the art of programming. I think that's an
    important point.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Pall Thayer | Sat Oct 8th 2005 7:31 p.m.
    Hi Antoine,
    Thanks for your response and pointing out your text. But I don't
    agree with you and I think the main difference in our points of view
    is that you seem to be comparing code to a creative environment
    ("...if I were a painter, I would not show my studio...") whereas I
    am calling it the medium. I think it's very curious that you should
    say that you would not show your paint but you would show your
    paintings. Paintings are paint therefore, when you show your
    paintings, you show your paint. Code-based art is quite unique in
    this aspect. We manipulate code the way a painter manipulates paint
    but when a painter does it, you can see how the medium is
    manipulated. In the case of code-based art you don't see how the
    artist has manipulated the medium (the code) you only see the product
    of the manipulation. I'm not trying to say that we should *require*
    artists to show their code, that would be silly. But I think that if
    more artists would do it, the field itself would benefit from it in
    several ways.

    Pall

    On 7.10.2005, at 06:06, Antoine Schmitt wrote:

    > :::::::::4/10/05::::18:42 -0700::::Pall Thayer:::::::::
    >
    >> http://pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    >>
    >
    > Dear Pall,
    > we've had the occasion to have some interesting discussions about
    > software art in the past. Your text is the occasion for me to
    > continue by answering with another text that I had written for my
    > contribution to the CODeDOC II exhibition at Ars in 2003, where the
    > rule of the exhibition was that the code was displayed alongside
    > the artwork itself. This time, I do no agree with your position : I
    > don't think that artists-programmers _should_ show their code (note
    > that I'm not saying that they shouldn't either...), and I'm giving
    > arguments, and making parallels with other artistic mediums like
    > cinema :
    >
    > http://www.aec.at/de/festival2003/programm/codedoc/schmitt/
    > comments.html
    >
    > Best thoughts,
    > --
    >
    > ++ as
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Antoine Schmitt | Sun Oct 9th 2005 4:11 a.m.
    Hi Pall,
    Yes I guess that the context of programmed art would be more sane if
    more artists showed their code because critics, curators and
    commisionners would stop fantasizing about the code itself after
    seeing that it is just a bunch of clever and rather simple maths, and
    not magical spells nor litterature... That's why I finally accepted
    Christiane Paul's rules for CODeDOCII : help demystify the whole
    thing of the code.

    And you are right when challenging my "paint/painting" parallel. It
    is misleading in the discussion because in painting, the spectator
    has no other choice than to see the paint and the painting at the
    same time, which is not the case with programs. Actually, since the
    time of this text (2003), I have refined my thoughts and speeches by
    making the parallel with cinema or written music : showing the
    program alongside the programmed artwork is like showing the scenario
    alongside the movie picture or like distributing the score to the
    listeners of chamber music. Like in programmed art, the production of
    the artist is not intended to the public but to a third party (the
    actors, the director, the musicians, the computer) and the public
    experience the result of the interpretation of the
    program/score/scenario by the third party. For the other artists (or
    specialists), it is very instructive. And artistically, it is the
    artists choice (most don't do it).

    ... But then, most scenarii and scores are available to the public in
    some way or another, just not alongside the artwork, but in
    specialized places, stores, etc.. And maybe we artists-programmers
    should do the same.. But we should think twice before showing it
    alonside the artwork, I guess that's all I trying to say since the
    beginning... The only thing to which I am always reacting is this
    fascination for the code, and all the hype around it, and I always
    try to demystify it by being precise on the words and intentions.
    --

    ++ as
  • Robert Spahr | Sun Oct 9th 2005 6:44 p.m.
    Pall,

    In my own recent work, the process is more akin to printmaking. Much the way a person might work on a woodcut and then print a proof, look at the image, and then go back and work on the woodcut some more, I do something similar when I write scripts. I write them, and then stop to generate an image, then go back and tweak the script. I then repeat this process until I am satisfied with the image. My scripts are then automated and continue to run over time without my intervention. So to me the medium of my work is either the digital image or possibly an inkjet print. But the process consists of the code. The same way I might be casting a sculpture in concrete, the process might contain clay and plaster molds, and that might be of interest to other artists, but the medium of the sculpture is still concrete.

    But I do agree with you, that if more artist shared their code, it would contribute to our overall understanding of each others processes. Most of the time we are looking at the final medium, and not the materials of the art making process.

    Just my 2 cents...

    -- Robert

    On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:29:15 -0400
    Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

    > Hi Antoine,
    > Thanks for your response and pointing out your text. But I don't
    > agree with you and I think the main difference in our points of view
    > is that you seem to be comparing code to a creative environment
    > ("...if I were a painter, I would not show my studio...") whereas I
    > am calling it the medium. I think it's very curious that you should
    > say that you would not show your paint but you would show your
    > paintings. Paintings are paint therefore, when you show your
    > paintings, you show your paint. Code-based art is quite unique in
    > this aspect. We manipulate code the way a painter manipulates paint
    > but when a painter does it, you can see how the medium is
    > manipulated. In the case of code-based art you don't see how the
    > artist has manipulated the medium (the code) you only see the product
    > of the manipulation. I'm not trying to say that we should *require*
    > artists to show their code, that would be silly. But I think that if
    > more artists would do it, the field itself would benefit from it in
    > several ways.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    >
    > On 7.10.2005, at 06:06, Antoine Schmitt wrote:
    >
    > > :::::::::4/10/05::::18:42 -0700::::Pall Thayer:::::::::
    > >
    > >> http://pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
    > >>
    > >
    > > Dear Pall,
    > > we've had the occasion to have some interesting discussions about
    > > software art in the past. Your text is the occasion for me to
    > > continue by answering with another text that I had written for my
    > > contribution to the CODeDOC II exhibition at Ars in 2003, where the
    > > rule of the exhibition was that the code was displayed alongside
    > > the artwork itself. This time, I do no agree with your position : I
    > > don't think that artists-programmers _should_ show their code (note
    > > that I'm not saying that they shouldn't either...), and I'm giving
    > > arguments, and making parallels with other artistic mediums like
    > > cinema :
    > >
    > > http://www.aec.at/de/festival2003/programm/codedoc/schmitt/
    > > comments.html
    > >
    > > Best thoughts,
    > > --
    > >
    > > ++ as
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > > subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > > 29.php
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?"
    And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.
  • Geert Dekkers | Mon Oct 10th 2005 2:31 a.m.
    Hi All,

    > One of the first steps towards meaningful discussion would be the
    > recognition of code as medium rather than computer as medium. To
    > say that the
    > computer is the medium is like saying that a painters canvas is the
    > medium.

    I wouldn't say there is any need to specify this or that aspect of
    the production process as THE medium of the particular art form. It's
    up to the artist to decide what is the medium, and what is the mediated.

    Blinky Palermo's art takes the canvas, makes this the medium. In Nam
    June Paiks work -- his earlier work through the eighties -- the
    television is an sculptural element, but in video art, its a medium.

    Blinky Palermo
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 051003
    http://www.staedelmuseum.de/index.php?id95

    Nam June Paik
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 050206
    http://stephan.barron.free.fr/art_video/images/
    paik_the_more_the_better.jpg

    Video Art
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 050325
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 050401
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 050210
    http://nznl.com/geert/pop.php?dag 040602

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

    On 4-okt-2005, at 7:11, Pall Thayer wrote:

    > http://pallit.lhi.is/palli/ArtOpS.pdf
  • Rob Myers | Mon Oct 10th 2005 3:19 a.m.
    Quoting Robert Spahr <rob@robertspahr.com>:

    > In my own recent work, the process is more akin to printmaking.

    I regard the computer as a printmaking medium, but then I tend to use
    PostScript
    and its descendants.

    > [...] if more artist shared their code, it would contribute to our
    > overall understanding of each others processes. Most of the time we
    > are looking at the final medium, and not the materials of the art
    > making process.

    We need a Free Software-style moral imperative to show code. Any claim to
    critical , resistant or even artistic (as such) practice for programmed art is
    undermined if the artist does the proprietary culture thing of hiding their
    code.

    IKB was fun, but if every artist patented their colours we wouldn't get very
    far.

    - Rob.
  • Geert Dekkers | Mon Oct 10th 2005 8:48 a.m.
    While I consider it interesting to use open source software and/or
    adhere to open source standards, I always seem to go back to
    propriety software because of the overhead of changing. And because I
    fail to see what open source has to do with making art.

    Or could this stance (wanting to use open source) possibly have
    anything to do with any prevailing policital consensus among
    net.artists?? (I remember, at one point, being amazed that
    contemporary artists could be conservatives, because I'd taken for
    granted the members of the classic avant-garde were all left-wing.
    But I was of course mistaken -- contemporary artists weren't/aren't
    all avantgarde, and not all avantgarde artists were/are leftists... )

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

    On 10-okt-2005, at 11:18, rob@robmyers.org wrote:

    > Quoting Robert Spahr <rob@robertspahr.com>:
    >
    >
    >> In my own recent work, the process is more akin to printmaking.
    >>
    >
    > I regard the computer as a printmaking medium, but then I tend to
    > use PostScript
    > and its descendants.
    >
    >
    >> [...] if more artist shared their code, it would contribute to our
    >> overall understanding of each others processes. Most of the time
    >> we are looking at the final medium, and not the materials of the
    >> art making process.
    >>
    >
    > We need a Free Software-style moral imperative to show code. Any
    > claim to
    > critical , resistant or even artistic (as such) practice for
    > programmed art is
    > undermined if the artist does the proprietary culture thing of
    > hiding their
    > code.
    >
    > IKB was fun, but if every artist patented their colours we wouldn't
    > get very
    > far.
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 10th 2005 9:55 a.m.
    Here's a combined response to some of the recent posts. I'm not
    talking about using open-source software. I'm talking about artists
    revealing their own source-code regardless of what they're using.
    This has nothing to do with the politics of open-source. The fact
    that there is a sizable community of artists programming art that
    never meet face to face for idle chat, means that the dissemination
    of ideas has to be handled differently. Art has never been solely
    about what is seen/heard/experienced, etc.. It's also about the
    methods and processes involved. This has always been an important
    aspect of all art. It looks to me like the main difference in
    opinions in this matter has to do with the medium. What do artists
    see as the medium in their work. When Robert Spahr says that to him
    the image is the medium, I don't buy it. That just doesn't sound
    feasible to me. It's like a baker saying that cakes are the materials
    of his trade or a carpenter saying that his materials are houses. The
    medium is the material that the artist manipulates and turns into a
    work of art. It's the creative processes that go into the production
    of what we see/hear/experience, etc.. I think Jim Andrews post
    pointed out the benefits of artists sharing code (although it wasn't
    his intention). The interview he mentioned is very curious. The
    artist basically tells us that the *art* is in the code but he can't
    share it with us. He doesn't seem to be able to discuss his artwork
    without mentioning the code, which he can't share with us. So he'd
    like for us to have these important elements in mind to appreciate
    his art, but he can't tell us what they are. Very absurd. Well, I've
    done this painting that I'd love to show you all, but I can't.
    Because it uses some new processes of manipulating the paint and the
    problem is that you can see those processes in the painting but I
    can't reveal my processes so I can't show you my painting. It's
    really cool though, you'll just have to take my word for it. Can I
    have my "accomplished artist" pin now?

    Pall

    On 10.10.2005, at 10:47, Geert Dekkers wrote:

    > While I consider it interesting to use open source software and/or
    > adhere to open source standards, I always seem to go back to
    > propriety software because of the overhead of changing. And because
    > I fail to see what open source has to do with making art.
    >
    > Or could this stance (wanting to use open source) possibly have
    > anything to do with any prevailing policital consensus among
    > net.artists?? (I remember, at one point, being amazed that
    > contemporary artists could be conservatives, because I'd taken for
    > granted the members of the classic avant-garde were all left-wing.
    > But I was of course mistaken -- contemporary artists weren't/aren't
    > all avantgarde, and not all avantgarde artists were/are leftists... )
    >
    > Geert
    > http://nznl.com
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10-okt-2005, at 11:18, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Quoting Robert Spahr <rob@robertspahr.com>:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> In my own recent work, the process is more akin to printmaking.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> I regard the computer as a printmaking medium, but then I tend to
    >> use PostScript
    >> and its descendants.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> [...] if more artist shared their code, it would contribute to
    >>> our overall understanding of each others processes. Most of the
    >>> time we are looking at the final medium, and not the materials of
    >>> the art making process.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> We need a Free Software-style moral imperative to show code. Any
    >> claim to
    >> critical , resistant or even artistic (as such) practice for
    >> programmed art is
    >> undermined if the artist does the proprietary culture thing of
    >> hiding their
    >> code.
    >>
    >> IKB was fun, but if every artist patented their colours we
    >> wouldn't get very
    >> far.
    >>
    >> - Rob.
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 10th 2005 7:12 p.m.
    don't get me wrong, i am all for artist-programmers distributing their code,
    if it is useful, interesting, and well-documented. that has been a task i
    have spent quite a bit of time on in some of my work (such as
    http://vispo.com/nio ). the technotes essay I wrote discussing the code
    ideas is now part of the Director documentation on audio programming. and
    wfs is code for director i release for a price ( http://vispo.com/wfs4 ).
    and there's other code at http://vispo.com/writings/index.htm#lingo

    you may have missed my point, though, pall. the main point was that the
    durieu code idea was revealed in the interview. if one understands the code
    idea, one does not need the code. also, the code itself is not enough to
    understand the code idea because the code idea involves knowledge of
    mappings of the complex plane. i suspect durieu mostly wanted me to
    understand the code idea because it's beautiful. a most elegant use of
    complex number theory in the service of art. there's the 'who done it'. then
    there's the 'how'd e do it'. riddles should add to mystery, more than the
    sum of their parts. i thought that's how it went down.

    i agree with your notion that "Art has never been solely about what is
    seen/heard/experienced, etc.." and that source code can be an important part
    of a piece of programmed art. additionally, one can help other
    artist-programmers to advance programmed art by releasing one's source code.

    but there is no moral imperative to operate this way. there is much unseen
    even in the seen. i know you understand this. not sure rob does though.

    ja
  • Antoine Schmitt | Wed Oct 12th 2005 10:12 p.m.
    Hi Pall,
    Yes I guess that the context of programmed art would be more sane if
    more artists showed their code because critics, curators and
    commisionners would stop fantasizing about the code itself after
    seeing that it is just a bunch of clever and rather simple maths, and
    not magical spells nor litterature... That's why I finally accepted
    Christiane Paul's rules for CODeDOCII : help demystify the whole
    thing of the code.

    And you are right when challenging my "paint/painting" parallel. It
    is misleading in the discussion because in painting, the spectator
    has no other choice than to see the paint and the painting at the
    same time, which is not the case with programs. Actually, since the
    time of this text (2003), I have refined my thoughts and speeches by
    making the parallel with cinema or written music : showing the
    program alongside the programmed artwork is like showing the scenario
    alongside the movie picture or like distributing the score to the
    listeners of chamber music. Like in programmed art, the production of
    the artist is not intended to the public but to a third party (the
    actors, the director, the musicians, the computer) and the public
    experience the result of the interpretation of the
    program/score/scenario by the third party. For the other artists (or
    specialists), it is very instructive. And artistically, it is the
    artists choice (most don't do it).

    ... But then, most scenarii and scores are available to the public in
    some way or another, just not alongside the artwork, but in
    specialized places, stores, etc.. And maybe we artists-programmers
    should do the same.. But we should think twice before showing it
    alonside the artwork, I guess that's all I trying to say since the
    beginning... The only thing to which I am always reacting is this
    fascination for the code, and all the hype around it, and I always
    try to demystify it by being precise on the words and intentions.
    --

    ++ as

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Your Reply