Fwd: Rhizome -- Software Art Installation

if shirley's project (which looks beautiful) were to fall under the category of 'software art', wouldn't that mean that we have to group everything that is 'generative design' under this header, just because there is a piece of code generating the graphics in realtime?

for me, it still makes more sense to use the notion of 'software art' for projects that reflect on software as an artistic material and as a cultural artifact, rather than simply _using_ software.

i have not seen the documentation for the piece, but from what i can see, it would not qualify for the transmediale software art competition.

greetings,
-a

> > Rhizome, 2003
> > Software Art and sound installation by Shirley Shor
> > PC projection, custom software, balloon, speakers
> >
> > http://shirley.friskit.com/dance/rhizome_sfac.htm

> > In this piece I'm using software as a material and a medium for
> > artistic work.
> > The visuals are dynamically generated in real-time by custom PC
> > software and are projected on a 8' diameter weather balloon.
> > the result is an evolving ambient light- sculpture.
> >
> > In Rhizome space itself becomes engulfed in time. Space becomes
> > temporal.
> > The environment is generated by software code that generates an on-
> > going random path, and a playful evolving structure.
> > The complex system is twisting around unfixed center point, and
> creates
> > a notion of turbulence.

I was almost tempted to agree. I'm not really sure why though. Maybe because
we've become accustomed to accessibility to software art via the internet.
In this case however, the internet doesn't appear to have anything to do
with it. Then maybe it's because it appears that we don't get to use it (no
interactivity). It's something created only for Shirley's use. Maybe
because it includes elements that have nothing to do with the computer
(weather baloon). The more I tried to come up with a reason to not
categorize this as 'software art' the closer I came to actually classifying
it as 'software art'. Of course the lack of information about the project
doesn't really help. But what it comes down to is that if Shirley claims to
be using artist made software in an art context then it must be 'software
art'. How does this work (or at least our perception of it based on the
information provided) differ from say, Mark Napier's "SpringyDotsApplet" in
CODeDOC?

I understand what you mean about the notion of 'software art' as reflection
on software as an artistic material and cultural artifact and despite the
preferred theories of ReadMe and Transmediale, I don't think this is the
generally accepted idea of 'software art'. What I mean is that when people
hear the term 'software art', I don't think your definition is the first
thing to enter their minds. This may even be reflected in the transmediale
'03 jury statement for the software category:

"The jury was also very aware that the particular set of projects submitted
to the competition do not completely reflect the full range of the
activities that fit into the scope of the competition."

It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were
expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have conflicting
understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the case,
that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on software
and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?

Pall

—– Original Message —–
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Fwd: Rhizome – Software Art Installation


> if shirley's project (which looks beautiful) were to fall under the
category of 'software art', wouldn't that mean that we have to group
everything that is 'generative design' under this header, just because there
is a piece of code generating the graphics in realtime?
>
> for me, it still makes more sense to use the notion of 'software art' for
projects that reflect on software as an artistic material and as a cultural
artifact, rather than simply _using_ software.
>
> i have not seen the documentation for the piece, but from what i can see,
it would not qualify for the transmediale software art competition.
>
> greetings,
> -a
>
> > > Rhizome, 2003
> > > Software Art and sound installation by Shirley Shor
> > > PC projection, custom software, balloon, speakers
> > >
> > > http://shirley.friskit.com/dance/rhizome_sfac.htm
>
> > > In this piece I'm using software as a material and a medium for
> > > artistic work.
> > > The visuals are dynamically generated in real-time by custom PC
> > > software and are projected on a 8' diameter weather balloon.
> > > the result is an evolving ambient light- sculpture.
> > >
> > > In Rhizome space itself becomes engulfed in time. Space becomes
> > > temporal.
> > > The environment is generated by software code that generates an on-
> > > going random path, and a playful evolving structure.
> > > The complex system is twisting around unfixed center point, and
> > creates
> > > a notion of turbulence.
> + 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

wrote:

> if shirley's project (which looks beautiful) were to fall under the
> category of 'software art', wouldn't that mean that we have to group
> everything that is 'generative design' under this header, just because
> there is a piece of code generating the graphics in realtime?
>
> for me, it still makes more sense to use the notion of 'software art'
> for projects that reflect on software as an artistic material and as a
> cultural artifact, rather than simply \_using\_ software.
>
> i have not seen the documentation for the piece, but from what i can
> see, it would not qualify for the transmediale software art
> competition.
>
> greetings,
> -a


Andreas,

I think that we are beyond the point of thinking about software art (or code art) only as a tool separated from the art discourse. I agree that for a while we had a need to define this art form in order to investigate, understand, learn to use, and to realize what kind of medium/material we are dealing with. We had to find the limitations of this medium but also to find the cracks, and the folds. In this sense, it was natural to deal and to focus on works that reflect on software as an artistic material. My point is that we where in this situation about seven years ago. This doesn't mean that we need to stop asking those questions about that medium itself (did we ever stop asking about the nature of panting? photography?). What I'm saying is that we are now ready to express software art through fine art itself. In other words, to combine code (as a raw material) with other methods, other mediums, and other disciplines in order to create works of fine art. It doesn

dear pall,

thanks for your response,

>But what it comes down to is that if Shirley claims to
>be using artist made software in an art context then it must be 'software
>art'. How does this work (or at least our perception of it based on the
>information provided) differ from say, Mark Napier's "SpringyDotsApplet" in
>CODeDOC?

well, maybe it doesn't, which is why Napier's piece may also not
qualify; what i am trying to argue is that to say that any 'artist
made software in an art context must be software art', is reductive
and makes the term utterly redundant. you can do that, but it only
means that we have to develop a different term that holds the notion
of reflexivity which i am arguing for.


>It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were
>expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have conflicting
>understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the case,
>that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on software
>and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?

depends what it is: can be net art, can be generative design, can be
interactive performance, all sorts of things; the way i understood
the last jury at transmediale, what they meant was more in the line
of what the tm.01 software jury also argued: within the field of
software art ('restricted understanding'), many possible tracks have
not been explored yet. you can also check out the many categories on
runme.org.

where, in this cosmos, would you locate shirley's work?

regards,

-a

Hi Andreas,

My main concern is defining programming and scripting languages as artistic
tools. I think they should be more widely taught in art academies and
departments as artistic tools. It doesn't really matter what the end product
is called. Anyone can try as much as they want to coin a certain term and
decide it's meaning but in the end the artists themselves will provide the
definition. The only reason I have a problem with what you are saying is
this: take something like Napiers SpringyDots. It's art. It's software.
Isn't it then software art? I think a term like 'software art' is too
ambiguous to be something that defines a specific genre of computer related
artwork (one of these days, we'll probably have a bunch of sub-categories
like 'abstract visual software art', 'interface software art',
'data-relation software art', 'faulty error-prone software art', etc).
Besides, doesn't work that reflects or critiques a certain element of daily
life (such as the use of computers and computer programs) already have some
kind of sub-category within the arts? Take for instance the project you
mention by Matthew Fuller (the MS Word dialogue boxes). Let's say someone
does similar work involving all the different street signs that can be found
along Main Street in Mytown, Whereever (it's probably been done by someone).
Isn't it the same sort of work? Aren't they addressing very similar issues?
Should we then call the streetsign project 'street art'? Let's take another
example, Eldar Karhalev and Ivan Khimin's Screen Saver. One of the winners
of the Read_Me 1.2 festival. This type of instructional artwork isn't new
and isn't unique to computers. Sounds to me more like Fluxus than software.
I don't feel that we need a term that separates work about software from
work about kitchen sinks. But I do feel that there is a need to establish
the process of creating certain types of software as an artistic act so that
it may be properly addressed within the art community and schools.

As far as Shirley's work goes, as I said before, the artists will define
what is and what is not software art. If she says it's software art, who are
we to argue? Presenting this type of 'software art' as an installation piece
is very interesting. Poses a lot of questions. As I mentioned sometime
before, artists software is usually approachable by the public. You can
download it and do stuff with it and gain a first hand experience of it as
software running on your own computer. But why should that mean that it's
'more' software than Shirley's project? Appearantly she's using the same
processes as artists who present their software on the internet and
elsewhere in that she's using code and the essence of code to generate
visual artwork.

Pall

—– Original Message —–
From: "Andreas Broeckmann" <[email protected]>
To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Fwd: Rhizome – Software Art Installation


> dear pall,
>
> thanks for your response,
>
> >But what it comes down to is that if Shirley claims to
> >be using artist made software in an art context then it must be 'software
> >art'. How does this work (or at least our perception of it based on the
> >information provided) differ from say, Mark Napier's "SpringyDotsApplet"
in
> >CODeDOC?
>
> well, maybe it doesn't, which is why Napier's piece may also not
> qualify; what i am trying to argue is that to say that any 'artist
> made software in an art context must be software art', is reductive
> and makes the term utterly redundant. you can do that, but it only
> means that we have to develop a different term that holds the notion
> of reflexivity which i am arguing for.
>
>
> >It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were
> >expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have
conflicting
> >understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the case,
> >that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on
software
> >and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?
>
> depends what it is: can be net art, can be generative design, can be
> interactive performance, all sorts of things; the way i understood
> the last jury at transmediale, what they meant was more in the line
> of what the tm.01 software jury also argued: within the field of
> software art ('restricted understanding'), many possible tracks have
> not been explored yet. you can also check out the many categories on
> runme.org.
>
> where, in this cosmos, would you locate shirley's work?
>
> regards,
>
> -a
> + 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

dear pall,

thanks for your interesting answer. i take your point and want to
think about what you say, because it seems reasonable, and i don't
want to argue just for the sake of an argument. my feeling is that a
case should still be made for a less general notion of software art,
but at the moment i could only repeat myself, so i will shut up and
come back to it when i have a clearer mind.

there are other people who have also argued against the notion of
software art altogether, as it creates another niche, another
imprecise sub-genre of the already contested media art field. i'm
aware of that problem, but i also believe that strategically the
attention to software in particular has some relevance.

i'll leave it here and will respond later, if i have points to add.

best regards,

-a

>Besides, doesn't work that reflects or critiques a certain element of daily
>life (such as the use of computers and computer programs) already have some
>kind of sub-category within the arts? Take for instance the project you
>mention by Matthew Fuller (the MS Word dialogue boxes).

>I don't feel that we need a term that separates work about software from
>work about kitchen sinks. But I do feel that there is a need to establish
>the process of creating certain types of software as an artistic act so that
>it may be properly addressed within the art community and schools.

On Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003, at 19:03 America/New_York, Pall Thayer wrote:

> It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were
> expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have
> conflicting
> understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the
> case,
> that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on
> software
> and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?

May I interject here.
You are right in every count given my very unscholarly conversations
with some ''software'' artists. The problem is, people feel
uncomfortable calling some of these pieces paintings or even
sculptures. If software is just the medium, just like oil, wax or
acrylics –and it has nothing to reflect upon the 'nature' of
software– what do we call it? I vote for artware.


/ l i z a

Liza Sabater wrote:

> On Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003, at 19:03 America/New_York, Pall Thayer
> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they
> were
> > expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have
> > conflicting
> > understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the
> > case,
> > that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on
> > software
> > and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?
>
> May I interject here.
> You are right in every count given my very unscholarly conversations
> with some ''software'' artists. The problem is, people feel
> uncomfortable calling some of these pieces paintings or even
> sculptures. If software is just the medium, just like oil, wax or
> acrylics –and it has nothing to reflect upon the 'nature' of
> software– what do we call it? I vote for artware.
>

I am surprised that artists would think of software as only
the medium, and not the subject material. Perhaps I am seeing
a potential evolutionary progression from:

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)

This evolution may be wishful thinking on my part,
and yet, there seem to be numerous creative possibilities
in treating software as the subject. I think
back to Tron as one cinematic incarnation of this
view. We are now closer, than in 1982, to build
"operational Trons". Thoughts?


-paul


>
> / l i z a
>

:::::::::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…
–

++ as