"The gist of my argument today is that the cultural topology of this
software 'environment' is articulated by art projects. I'm not saying that
all art with digital media has to address the specifics of software, but I
think that Software Art should."
There isn't much software art that can begin to compare with Napster in
articulating the cultural topology of the software environment. Napster went
beyond articulating it to shaping it. This is a possibility for software art
that is rarely considered: that software art can not solely articulate but
shape culture and its software.
The most original programmers in the world define software art by their
creations.
Part of the excitement of software art is that a lot of it happens outside
the art world; software art cannot easily be contained therein, precisely
because it is a practice relevant much more widely than to matters of art.
The art of programming comprehends Knuth's approach but also involves the
engineering of experience. And, as you say, awareness of the social context.
You say
"I believe that we need a strong notion of what constitutes art, and we must
argue about that, but it would help immensely if we could agree on drawing a
bottom line which excludes some attempts. For me, and again I put this up
for discussion, art is about the transgression of boundaries, about making
familiar experiences strange, about dramatising what pretends to be
innocent, and about exploring the virtualities, the potentialities of
technologies and human relationships."
The stronger the notion of what constitutes art, the more it will miss. It
is, I suppose, the job of critics to define it and artists to confound their
definitions via works that escape categorization and open into fresh
experience/perception/realization of what art can be.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: Fwd: <nettime> ars lecture on software / art /
-
Type: discussion
Comments
"The gist of my argument today is that the cultural topology of this
software 'environment' is articulated by art projects. I'm not saying
that all art with digital media has to address the specifics of
software, but I think that Software Art should."
I beg to differ with this for a different reason - namely, the idea that
the *duty* of art (in whatever genre - painting, video, software, etc.)
is to address the (social/cultural/political/economic) context in which
it is created.
This is an important area for art in any medium to address - one could
say that the whole modernist project was about addressing, questioning
and criticizing these questions. Software art, being a little newer than
painting and much less accessible to those that do not code, has a
critical responsibility to this end. However, to limit software art to
discussing the context of software only is very narrow given that there
is a world outside of the production and distribution of software.
(Should painting only address the specifics of painting or photography
only those of photography? This leads to speaking to specialists about
specialist history of specialist genres).
In my opinion it is much more interesting to investigate how software
can intersect with other genres, with physical space, with ways to
provoke (general) audiences to participation/engagement, with themes
that might not be related to geek/nerd/open-source/etc. communities (not
to dis on these here - i'm a coder that aspires towards geekdom - only
that it seems to me that there is a fetishization of the "geek" in the
software art world – e.g. whoever's got the baddest skillset wins ). I
think it is reasonable and entirely necessary to ask software art to
open up its area of criticality and engage not only with the context of
software but with the world at large - the software and tools are ready,
the humans need to catch up.
best,
kanarinka
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: <nettime> ars lecture on software / art /
"The gist of my argument today is that the cultural topology of this
software 'environment' is articulated by art projects. I'm not saying
that all art with digital media has to address the specifics of
software, but I think that Software Art should."
There isn't much software art that can begin to compare with Napster in
articulating the cultural topology of the software environment. Napster
went beyond articulating it to shaping it. This is a possibility for
software art that is rarely considered: that software art can not solely
articulate but shape culture and its software.
The most original programmers in the world define software art by their
creations.
Part of the excitement of software art is that a lot of it happens
outside the art world; software art cannot easily be contained therein,
precisely because it is a practice relevant much more widely than to
matters of art. The art of programming comprehends Knuth's approach but
also involves the engineering of experience. And, as you say, awareness
of the social context.
You say
"I believe that we need a strong notion of what constitutes art, and we
must argue about that, but it would help immensely if we could agree on
drawing a bottom line which excludes some attempts. For me, and again I
put this up for discussion, art is about the transgression of
boundaries, about making familiar experiences strange, about dramatising
what pretends to be innocent, and about exploring the virtualities, the
potentialities of technologies and human relationships."
The stronger the notion of what constitutes art, the more it will miss.
It is, I suppose, the job of critics to define it and artists to
confound their definitions via works that escape categorization and open
into fresh experience/perception/realization of what art can be.
ja
http://vispo.com
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
Kanarinka wrote:
>
> "The gist of my argument today is that the cultural topology of this
> software 'environment' is articulated by art projects. I'm not saying
> that all art with digital media has to address the specifics of
> software, but I think that Software Art should."
>
> I beg to differ with this for a different reason - namely, the idea
> that
> the *duty* of art (in whatever genre - painting, video, software,
> etc.)
> is to address the (social/cultural/political/economic) context in
> which
> it is created.
I need to make sure I am understanding your point. Are you saying
that you think that there is a specific anti-formalist duty of art,
or are you rejecting this stated "duty" ? Of course, there is no
such duty.
-pf
I'm saying that there is no such duty – it was primarily in reaction to
the comment that Software Art "has to address the specifics of software"
– I find that to be a very limiting, modernist, formalist approach to
creating art in any medium. As far as thematic "shoulds" I don't think
there is any such thing for any medium. I am more interested in seeing
software art engage with the world outside of software to see what it
can bring to bear in that sphere.
best,
kanarinka
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of metaphorz
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: <nettime> ars lecture on software /
art /
Kanarinka wrote:
>
> "The gist of my argument today is that the cultural topology of this
> software 'environment' is articulated by art projects. I'm not saying
> that all art with digital media has to address the specifics of
> software, but I think that Software Art should."
>
> I beg to differ with this for a different reason - namely, the idea
> that the *duty* of art (in whatever genre - painting, video, software,
> etc.)
> is to address the (social/cultural/political/economic) context in
> which
> it is created.
I need to make sure I am understanding your point. Are you saying that
you think that there is a specific anti-formalist duty of art, or are
you rejecting this stated "duty" ? Of course, there is no such duty.
-pf
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
> I'm saying that there is no such duty – it was primarily in reaction to
> the comment that Software Art "has to address the specifics of software"
> – I find that to be a very limiting, modernist, formalist approach to
> creating art in any medium. As far as thematic "shoulds" I don't think
> there is any such thing for any medium. I am more interested in seeing
> software art engage with the world outside of software to see what it
> can bring to bear in that sphere.
>
> best,
> kanarinka
I feel you're making an important point. The 'shoulds' are for the arts
journalists and critics. If you want your work written about by most arts
journalists, you 'should' hook it into the news. If you want your work
written about by critics that write from a particular angle, then you
'should' reference that angle in the work. If you want your work to last
longer than the current news, then you might try a different approach, like
your own.
"Poetry is news that stays news."
Ezra Pound
ja
http://vispo.com