Since 2000, I have been working with elements of digital formalism in
the form of low-resolution, "8 bit or less" systems (currently about to
embark on a 4-bit, pre-personal computer era project). As part of the
ongoing project, I have a draft of a 58-page document describing some of
my thoughts on the subject. Also in progress is a Manifesto on Digital
Minimalism.
The full text is at http://www.voyd.com/lichtydigimini.pdf
It is unfinished as it needs an editing pass for structure and
grammatical/typo errors, and a fact needs to be verified on one piece in
the text (will make an argument being made either implicit or explicit)
Instead of sitting on it forever, I have decided to let the Alpha
Revision out for review/comment.
The first paragraph/abstract is as follows:
In the practice of digital arts and more specific New Media, many
stylistic and methodological genres have come into existence. Tactical
Media, Flash Art, Contagious Media, net.art, ASCII Art, Virtual Reality,
Telepresent Art, and others all have distinctive contexts around which
they are created and operate. Within the digital arts, there appears to
be a form which incorporates low resolution, a technological sparseness,
or a tactical use of these to create a cultural context specific to the
work. These works, although by no means a 'movement' in the traditional
sense of a concerted front of affiliated artists interested in creating
a unified statement, seem to share certain distinctive qualities. This
genre, which this essay will categorize as Digital Minimalism, draws
from fundamental traditions of Western art traditions, elements of
Modernism and the post-, and exhibits common elements which resurface
throughout the histories of art, science, and technology. In this
chapter, I intend to explore aspects of these histories and draw
associations between them to make an argument for the convergence of
certain visual devices (such as the Grid) which derive from empirical
study of perception, and are echoed in numerically-based representation
in digital art. Furthermore, it is also my position that digital culture
has reached a point in its own history in which related art forms can
now reflect on the digital art form and the cultural history of
computation, including photography, personal computing, and video games.
It is through this convergence of cultural themes that has led to the
emergence of a digitally minimal style, if not genre, and it is this
text's intent to explore the ramifications of this particular form.
Throughout history, the confluence of events has led to the emergence or
reiteration of conversational threads and/or Aristotelian topoi (topics)
in society and culture. Although these are the sources for essays in
themselves, examples could include 19th Century movements such as
Theosophy and Spiritualism inspiring Kandinsky or the Nabi, scientific
developments in optics and human perception conversing with
Impressionism and Pointillism, the dawn of the technological age
spawning Dada, Futurism, and the Bauhaus, among others. These is not to
say that one necessarily has a direct cause-and-effect relationship to
the other, but are indicative of a zeitgeist which creates a favorable
environment for the development of these ideas. To paraphrase Kandinsky,
much art (and culture) is a product of its time, but logically so.
There are paradigmatic structures that reiterate throughout Western
society that come from impulses as basic as the desire to describe the
nature of perceived reality. These include mathematics, perspective,
measurement, and geometry, all of which date from around or even before
the Classical era. For the purpose of this essay, I will be addressing
the use of the grid, primarily from Durer and DaVinci to Close and
Hockney, and its reiteration through numerical representation in the
McLuhan-esque technological prosthetic of computer graphics systems. It
is this writer's position that this 'common framework' is no accident,
as these structures reflect basic human perceptions of the physical
world and the conventions humanity has contrived to try to understand
it.
.
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
Towards a Digital Minimalism (2004-) Draft/Alpha Revision
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Very nice. A fascinating topic. Here is a shameless link to one of my more recent software installations, which I guess is going towards something like "digital minimalism", or as I was calling it, "high-tech minimalism".
8 bits of Infinite Contemplation
http://www.stevenread.com/8bitcontemplation
Steve Read
Hi Steve,
That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely convinced
that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital minimalism".
But this piece looks wonderful in a very minimalist sense that goes
beyond the number of bits.
This is written in haste, maybe I'll post something more elaborate
later this eve.
Pall
On 19.9.2006, at 16:52, Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
> Very nice. A fascinating topic. Here is a shameless link to one of
> my more recent software installations, which I guess is going
> towards something like "digital minimalism", or as I was calling
> it, "high-tech minimalism".
>
> 8 bits of Infinite Contemplation
> http://www.stevenread.com/8bitcontemplation
>
> Steve Read
> +
> -> 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
>
–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit
Thanks! You know me - "pushing technology to the minimum"
-steven
Pall Thayer wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
> paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely convinced
> that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital minimalism".
>
> But this piece looks wonderful in a very minimalist sense that goes
> beyond the number of bits.
>
> This is written in haste, maybe I'll post something more elaborate
> later this eve.
>
> Pall
>
> On 19.9.2006, at 16:52, Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
> > Very nice. A fascinating topic. Here is a shameless link to one of
> > my more recent software installations, which I guess is going
> > towards something like "digital minimalism", or as I was calling
> > it, "high-tech minimalism".
> >
> > 8 bits of Infinite Contemplation
> > http://www.stevenread.com/8bitcontemplation
> >
> > Steve Read
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
> That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
> paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely convinced
> that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital minimalism".
Actually, the argument isn't so much about a reduction of bits at all;
it's more about a digital formalism that deals with a reduction of
methods in terms of representation - systems, codes, hardware, programs
or resolution. Visually, this results in a paring back of
representation in ways that hint at historical forms, such as video
games, and even pre- personal computing. From Retro-Techno to
Necro-Techno (pre-retro, with retro having pop connotations), the latter
being my interest for a long time.
The diagram within the first ten pages spells out a lot of the argument,
as in linking the relationship between geometry, science, art, and
technology in the Western tradition, and after Close's Greenbergian
singularity in 1997, digital art is now post-pure, and that it (largely)
is either historical, largely formal, ironic/kitsch, or integrated into
larger art practices (and therefore outside my argument).
A NOTE: The 1997 Close print, "Alex", is one that I have seen at the
Cleveland Museum of Art, and remember to be highly mosaic'ed. However,
this is not verified. Until it is, I ask the readers to consider
Close's engagement with the digital grid as an 'implicit' formal
singularity than an 'explicit' one.
All of this is highly useful. Thanks.
patrick lichty wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> > That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
> > paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely convinced
>
> > that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital
> minimalism".
>
> Actually, the argument isn't so much about a reduction of bits at all;
> it's more about a digital formalism that deals with a reduction of
> methods in terms of representation - systems, codes, hardware,
> programs
> or resolution. Visually, this results in a paring back of
> representation in ways that hint at historical forms, such as video
> games, and even pre- personal computing. From Retro-Techno to
> Necro-Techno (pre-retro, with retro having pop connotations), the
> latter
> being my interest for a long time.
>
> The diagram within the first ten pages spells out a lot of the
> argument,
> as in linking the relationship between geometry, science, art, and
> technology in the Western tradition, and after Close's Greenbergian
> singularity in 1997, digital art is now post-pure, and that it
> (largely)
> is either historical, largely formal, ironic/kitsch, or integrated
> into
> larger art practices (and therefore outside my argument).
>
> A NOTE: The 1997 Close print, "Alex", is one that I have seen at the
> Cleveland Museum of Art, and remember to be highly mosaic'ed.
> However,
> this is not verified. Until it is, I ask the readers to consider
> Close's engagement with the digital grid as an 'implicit' formal
> singularity than an 'explicit' one.
>
> All of this is highly useful. Thanks.
>
Close ardently denies any influence of digital technology on his work however.
His journey, as he sees it, would best be described as increasingly building human patterns on a Cartesian grid, one that can called analog(ue).
Unless he changed his mind dramatically in the bast 2 years, he has always denied the influence of computational machines on his thinking.
That said, the rest of your discourse is really valuable.
Eric
I think it has to be said that while Close has stated his location in
the analogue, he was experimenting with IRIS prints in NYC in the mid
90's, and the one I saw was heavily mosaic'ed. Now, the point that I
make was that regardless of his intent, Close made that connection
between the analogue and digital grids and accessed/connected the deep
history of grids in Western traditions, and implicitly imploded the
digital (by the way, I think that solves that issue in the essay). Had
he not done that work, my point would be moot.
Close would surely deny his intentionality of the point I'm making, but
in exploring that possibility (and exhibiting it in a museum), he,
accidentally or not, makes that connection - regardless of whether it
was momentary or not.
My point is purely phenomenological in regards to the event of Close
making a digital print (and more strongly if it were mosaic'ed).
Of course, he's now much more into the pseudo Ukiyo-e, and totally
analogue…
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[email protected]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Eric Dymond
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Towards a Digital Minimalism
(2004-) Draft/Alpha Revision
patrick lichty wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> > That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
> > paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely convinced
>
> > that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital
> minimalism".
>
> Actually, the argument isn't so much about a reduction of bits at all;
> it's more about a digital formalism that deals with a reduction of
> methods in terms of representation - systems, codes, hardware,
> programs
> or resolution. Visually, this results in a paring back of
> representation in ways that hint at historical forms, such as video
> games, and even pre- personal computing. From Retro-Techno to
> Necro-Techno (pre-retro, with retro having pop connotations), the
> latter
> being my interest for a long time.
>
> The diagram within the first ten pages spells out a lot of the
> argument,
> as in linking the relationship between geometry, science, art, and
> technology in the Western tradition, and after Close's Greenbergian
> singularity in 1997, digital art is now post-pure, and that it
> (largely)
> is either historical, largely formal, ironic/kitsch, or integrated
> into
> larger art practices (and therefore outside my argument).
>
> A NOTE: The 1997 Close print, "Alex", is one that I have seen at the
> Cleveland Museum of Art, and remember to be highly mosaic'ed.
> However,
> this is not verified. Until it is, I ask the readers to consider
> Close's engagement with the digital grid as an 'implicit' formal
> singularity than an 'explicit' one.
>
> All of this is highly useful. Thanks.
>
Close ardently denies any influence of digital technology on his work
however.
His journey, as he sees it, would best be described as increasingly
building human patterns on a Cartesian grid, one that can called
analog(ue).
Unless he changed his mind dramatically in the bast 2 years, he has
always denied the influence of computational machines on his thinking.
That said, the rest of your discourse is really valuable.
Eric
+
-> 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
patrick lichty wrote:
> I think it has to be said that while Close has stated his location in
> the analogue, he was experimenting with IRIS prints in NYC in the mid
> 90's, and the one I saw was heavily mosaic'ed. Now, the point that I
> make was that regardless of his intent, Close made that connection
> between the analogue and digital grids and accessed/connected the deep
> history of grids in Western traditions, and implicitly imploded the
> digital (by the way, I think that solves that issue in the essay).
> Had
> he not done that work, my point would be moot.
>
> Close would surely deny his intentionality of the point I'm making,
> but
> in exploring that possibility (and exhibiting it in a museum), he,
> accidentally or not, makes that connection - regardless of whether it
> was momentary or not.
>
> My point is purely phenomenological in regards to the event of Close
> making a digital print (and more strongly if it were mosaic'ed).
>
But with that said at what point do we call digital => digital?
The image:
http://www.edymond.com/FRACT006.jpg
was generated using a Mandelcloud option in Fractint, very digital.
But the spirals look suspiciously like Leonardo's Deluge Drawings and the same spirals are seen in the late paintings of Van Gogh.
I can't say that Leonardo and Van Gogh are pre-digital precursors to the Mandelbrot Clouds, even though I might feel that they might have been attuned to similar phenomena.
We have to be careful who we bring in as founders, and who were just assimilated by the digital afterwards. And in a thesis I think you open up areas for criticism where none need to be exposed, as tempting as it might be.
Eric
> Of course, he's now much more into the pseudo Ukiyo-e, and totally
> analogue…
>
> Patrick Lichty
> - Interactive Arts & Media
> Columbia College, Chicago
> - Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 225 288 5813
> [email protected]
>
> "It is better to die on your feet
> than to live on your knees."
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Eric Dymond
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Towards a Digital Minimalism
> (2004-) Draft/Alpha Revision
>
> patrick lichty wrote:
>
> >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > > That's a great piece. I really like it. I haven't read Patrick's
> > > paper yet but did skim over it lightly and am not entirely
> convinced
> >
> > > that a reduction in bits necessarily constitutes "digital
> > minimalism".
> >
> > Actually, the argument isn't so much about a reduction of bits at
> all;
> > it's more about a digital formalism that deals with a reduction of
> > methods in terms of representation - systems, codes, hardware,
> > programs
> > or resolution. Visually, this results in a paring back of
> > representation in ways that hint at historical forms, such as video
> > games, and even pre- personal computing. From Retro-Techno to
> > Necro-Techno (pre-retro, with retro having pop connotations), the
> > latter
> > being my interest for a long time.
> >
> > The diagram within the first ten pages spells out a lot of the
> > argument,
> > as in linking the relationship between geometry, science, art, and
> > technology in the Western tradition, and after Close's Greenbergian
> > singularity in 1997, digital art is now post-pure, and that it
> > (largely)
> > is either historical, largely formal, ironic/kitsch, or integrated
> > into
> > larger art practices (and therefore outside my argument).
> >
> > A NOTE: The 1997 Close print, "Alex", is one that I have seen at
> the
> > Cleveland Museum of Art, and remember to be highly mosaic'ed.
> > However,
> > this is not verified. Until it is, I ask the readers to consider
> > Close's engagement with the digital grid as an 'implicit' formal
> > singularity than an 'explicit' one.
> >
> > All of this is highly useful. Thanks.
> >
>
> Close ardently denies any influence of digital technology on his work
> however.
> His journey, as he sees it, would best be described as increasingly
> building human patterns on a Cartesian grid, one that can called
> analog(ue).
> Unless he changed his mind dramatically in the bast 2 years, he has
> always denied the influence of computational machines on his thinking.
> That said, the rest of your discourse is really valuable.
>
> Eric
> +
> -> 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
>