Since the beginning
Works in Berlin Germany

Discussions (41) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)

Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog on the Rhiz front page

> I think raising the question of 'language differences' between artists
> and
> scientists (+ engineers, etc) misses the point of collaboration: that
> interpreting and finding a common language is part of the process. It
> assumes willing participants on both sides - which was what EAT was
> about.
> That's wholly different than me hiring a contract programmer or going
> to a
> machine shop and waving my hands around as I describe my project.
> --Roy
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Studio Blog:
> Exhibit Announcements:
> Gandhi - "Be the change you want to see in the world"

this is a true point, but its equally true for two collaborating artists.

may be it is useful to distinguish between different kinds of collaboration.
there is one type of collaboration, which I would rather call service-collaboration. It is this type where e.g. the artists needs scientific/technical advice or the scientists wants to "beautify some visualizations". But there is also a
type where probably both parties should just be called "artists"...regardless from their background.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

Hi Pall

>But I don't *really* want to teach my computer to recognize a circle.
>That would destroy my argument :-)

:-) :-) thats an argument!

>Whether or not circle's exist in nature I think is besides the point.

why? For me its a very interesting thing actually.
I am not kidding.

>We could replace it with a leaf. I could teach my computer to
>recognize a picture of a leaf but does that mean that it's going to
>recognize all leafs equally? A maple leaf as opposed to an oak leaf?
>A dead leaf? A torn leaf?

visual pattern regocnition got frightenly good in the
last years. One can defintely tell the difference between
a maple and an oak leave. I would even say between a dead
and a fresh leaf from the same kind. however sound is not so easy
as it seems. may be we should switch to rustle. :-)

Hi Curt

>Which kind of returns to Pall's original question -- from whence the >abstraction? If randomness plays *the* major role in generating >something that the user/patron reads as abstract, but the artist is not >intending to "abstract" anything at all, can this really be called >abstraction, or is it just some sort of accidental rorschach test for >the user?

I think randomness should play only a minor role in the
creation of abstraction. I said this already, but
I feel real (?!?!) abstraction is rather heavily
linked to our consciousness, which i do not perceive as
so super random... which brings us back to
Palls original question actually :-)

So yes may be I would like to see abstract art rather linked to the "philosophical" understanding of abstraction.
which finally leads to the important question:

How much abstraction (in the "philosophical" or
mathematical sense) can you actually put into an image,
a film -an artwork?

About the Tristan Tzara/John Cage/Sol Lewitt/Brion Gysin/Florian
Cramer etc.
concept branch:

Mathematicians are spending lifetimes on finding
"beautiful" proofs, also if there already exists
"ugly" (i.e. long and cumbersome) versions of the proof
for a given problem, so I can understand the
conceptional artists point.
see e.g.

But just
as for mathematics - you are climbing up the
ivory tower if you do that..
plus i have to say that some of the software poetry
looks just NICE :-O


Re: Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

Hi Curt,

>I'm no Ritchie expert, so I may be wrong. Maybe he's not talking >sub-atomically and galactically. Maybe he's just talking about how >changing your perspective on a recognizable, figurative human form can >tweak it into something that reads as abstract.

so it is an interesting question wether one should agree
to call something "abstract art" if it just looks as one.

>The paint showed evidence of his collaborative dance with chance.

I like that sentence :-). It is very true.

>With >generative software art, the human coder is the choreographer of >instructions for a chance dance. The software as it runs is now the >improvisational dancer, and the abstract visual art that results shows >evidence of the software's collaborative dance with chance.

No -I think not allways. I would agree only if you use
an element of randomness in your software. A lot of generative
art pieces are deterministic. In that case there is no dance with

>The abstract visuals that result are less central to the "art" of it >all. focuses on the >code >and the performative run of the code. You're free to take a >screen shot >of the abstract visuals that result, but that's not where >the "action" of >the exhibit is.>

Yes Christiane Paul put an emphasis on that and I think she
is very right to put a stress on that aspect in the arts
world. However last not least I think the visuals were
very important too (also if this is kept rather hidden).
In order to do the above pieces, you need to know BOTH:
the programming and the visuals. And some other things too actually,
like interactivity paradigms etc...
It is this interdisciplinarity which is important for the art pieces.

Or in short: I could imagine that some of the code on that
page (hoo I dont know!!) looks actually
very UGLY to a professional programmer and that some
of the visuals look terrible to a graphic designer (hooo
I dont know either...:-))....the great part of the
art is how the things a brought together.

Or even shorter: Why would Casey Reas study Armin Hofmann?


Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

Hi Pall

>So, after teaching my computer to draw a circle,
>will I be able to present the computer with an image of a circle and
>have it recognize it? No.

If you want to teach your computer how to recognize a circle
you may be interested in having a a look into "artificial neural networks" and "pattern recognition".

Last not least it may be o.k. to note again (i had that
already in an earlier post) that a circle is a
mathematical abstraction. There is no such thing
observable in nature. And any circle you draw on a
digital computer is no mathematical circle, but
just a kind of approximation.

>I feel
>that, regardless of the subject matter shown, the piece becomes
>inherently abstract because the 'entity' producing it isn't conscious
>of its content.

I would rather see it in the opposite way: abstraction is
very much connected to consciousness- but I feel unable
to be more precise about this (at least at the moment).


Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

Hi Curt

>There's this sort of ridiculous idea left over from the 20th century >that
>abstraction and figuration are legitimate poles. And I from the very >start have incorporated the two things together. I've been fascinated >by
>the idea that there is really no distinction -- it's just a question of >scale. (matthew ritchie)

>I don't think he's speaking philosophically. He's speaking in terms of >abstract forms vs. figurative forms. If you zoom in on a human form, >eventually you get to a scale that makes that form abstract. If you >zoom
>out from a human form, the same thing happens.

yes I was fearing that he meant that. but this seems to me an extremely
strange and rather narrow view of abstract art. But may be I am just badly informed. ?

For me the image of an atom is figurative. And if I see
a helium atom than i wouldnt guess that it is the abstraction
of lets say - Curt.

The fsu applets are nice. I knew the film, but
thanks anyways, its a great movie and good
enough to repeat the link forever and ever :-)

here is something for you,
if you havent seen this link before too:

Hi Dirk

>It seems it's in the interfering part ( a continuous actualisation of >waves
>collapsing to fact, after the fact) that this technology truly gets

I am not sure wether i understand what you mean - waves
are always interfering in some way.

they write that they focus (pulsed) laser light.
the laser light is infrared, i.e. you
cant see it. They focus in order to generate a punctual
plasma (which is ionized gas (ions=atoms with missing electrons)).
If you want: they burn the air at these points with the
laser (although to use the word "burn" in this context is not really correct...).

The plasma emitts viewable light. This effect is per se very old...
a lightning works in this way. The physics in the experiment actually
doesnt look so new to me either (but I am not a plasma physicist),
but may be the mechanical-optical part is difficult, that is
may be why i couldnt find another link to a similar
setup. I couldnt find a link to scientific references on
the site and the links on it. This
is what I really do not like about that article.