Re: 10 questions/more art

Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking and perception. When you write a program you already know what the result will be. Art doesn't function in the same way. Often an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of thinking and perception. Art is an ongoing cultural discussion. Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger cultural discourse.
Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs the question who is the judge? Usually in a larger cultural discourse there is an ongoing debate about what constitutes "good" art.
I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only people who know programming are truly digital artists to be rather narrow minded.
The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think about what the support structures are for art. You have collectors, museums, and governments. You can add the University and Academic realm as a support structure for art. Right now digital art has the most support from the Academic structure. In other words you get a teaching job.
Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and advance the art discourse. That's a much larger dscussion than whether someone knows programming or how a computer repaints a screen.

Plasma Studii wrote:

> we need a lot more people making computer art. most computer art is
> pretty bad. if you think about all the bob rosses and weekend nature
> water colorists most paintings are pretty bad too. but that's how
> the
> world is and that's cool. too much emphasis on quality is just
> discouraging. being bad is fine. however, there are so many
> painters
> that if even 5% are good, that's still a huge number. if 5% of
> net.artists are good that might be someone's little toe. more
> artists
> have more art to take as an example. the quality of the art doesn't
> matter. simply more examples will be helpful to us all.
>
>
> carlos:
>
> would it be more or less effective of a piece if you did it in a
> language of your choice?
>
>
> open to list:
>
> not that these very questions don't occur to many of us along the way
> in our development. but the vast majority of folks (a few of whom
> considering themselves net.art-friendly) have never actually gotten
> very deep into the process of creating computer art. they can
> (rightly
> so) barely imagine it. whereas we all can pretty well imagine how we
> bring in what we see, experiences and translate them into graphics on
> paper, canvas, etc. we can easily relate to what makes a
> michaelangelo
> sculpture impressive. many can further appreciate the conceptual
> leaps
> of a given contemporary artist, as beyond the obvious but a
> culmination
> of extensive thought. they just imagine typing code (hitting keys is
> hardly impressive), but not the logic puzzles doing it (hitting keys
> is
> merely a vehicle to get to the logic of how to say things literally
> and
> explicitly); but appreciation for these logic puzzles only comes
> with
> practice.
>
> how many curators can make an ball on the screen move in a circle
> using
> only text? now, how many get exactly why deciding what a machine's
> favorite color is beyond what can be coded? how many see exactly why
> animating how birds fly in flocks with no leader, is a challenge to
> make code-able? the creativity comes from pushing the border of what
> is code-able and what is not. but if a person has no clear notion of
> the details of that border, they can only make a wild guess based on
> areas they do know.
>
>
> actually, "who is paying for it?" is a VERY important question. but
> really it is for the person on the road to making a career of art.
> wondering, after years of steady playing, if they should call it a
> hobby or commit effort to another side of the work. but it's
> important
> because someone out there has to be convinced of the value or
> potential
> value of a piece. the proposal is really not the art, it is the
> marketing for the art. concepts that are related to art like a
> dense
> smoke and fire. fire is generally accompanied by smoke, but the
> reverse is hardly a given. smoke obscures seeing anything,
> particularly finding the fire. all language distorts and obscures
> all
> art (but some artists are after just that.)
>
> the folks who write the check, may not (and often don't) have much
> exposure to computer art compared to other traditional forms, they
> tend to see CA as a variant of visual art that can be summed up in a
> still image, slide or even video, audio art that is represent-able
> with
> a linear recording, or conceptual art, that can be summed up in
> verbiage. so, in a round about way of applying a different
> perspective
> to your question, often the road to answering "who pays?" is a
> different, but tangentally related skill, than creating it. like
> smoke
> and fire.
>
>
> asking if net.art is programmed, is actually like asking if the
> winner
> of the kentucky derby rode a living horse. i guess there's always
> the
> remote possibility that all the other horses died on the track too.
> but silly to consider. not programming seems silly too. programming
> is simply the way to talk to one kind of machine. few other machines
> react much when you talk to them. you CAN have a computer and choose
> to use it as a door stop. but at these prices, i can recommend a far
> cheaper alternative. i can't recommend a better machine for reacting
> to what you tell it.
>
> it's not that computers should be programmed on at all, but that
> programming has to be on a computer, and computers are expensive. so
> if you aren't programming, there are better ways to spend your
> money/time than a computer. if you want to do something that
> involves
> interactivity, auto-generation, extensive calculating, dynamically
> unpredictable graphics, i can recommend these machines.
>
> unfortunately, with net.art, many people have IP accounts, but do not
> take much advantage of what they can do with them. the gap is
> probably
> as wide, if not wider. but folks seem even more content with their
> lack of use. for most, the extent seems to be choosing whether or
> not
> to "skip intro" on a flash animation or hyperlinks that simply are
> the
> equivalent of page turning. blogs primarily used to simply make our
> most trivial diary blather public. seems like an enormous waste.
> but
> technology seems to promote throwing away cash.
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 8:54 PM, carlos katastrofsky wrote:
>
> > this was a kind of an emotional statement, partly to the readers,
> > partly to myself. sometimes i'm missing questions that people on
> the
> > street would ask, so i asked myself which questions this could be
> and
> > which clich�s are around this type of art…
> > so, to me it's like this:
> > 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are standard questions about works from the art
> -
> > field
> > 3, 9, 10 are more related to net (or even web-) art.
> > (two notes:
> > 9) i personally don't think a hacker is a criminal - far away from
> > that. but normally for most of the people it's like hacker = cracker
> =
> > bad = …
> > 10) deals with the "nerd" - clich�: people sitting in front of
> their
> > computers with no contacts to the "real" world)
> > (surely these 10 questions are not enough, but it was just a
> momentary
> > reaction)
> >
> > and, yes: judsoN, i think you said much of what i am not able to
> say
> > this way (my english, writing skills…)
> >
> > thanks for reacting!
> >
> > regards,
> > carlos
> >
> >
> >> Why should a net artist be awareof these questions?
> >>
> >> I think I am missing the point
> >>
> >> :P
> >>
> >> michael kargl wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1) what is it?
> >>> 2) why is it art?
> >>> 3) is programming art?
> >>> 4) why are you doing that?
> >>> 5) who is paying for such a s**t ?
> >>> 6) do you make a lot of money with your art?
> >>> 7) are you famous?
> >>> 8) what are you talking about?
> >>> 9) are you a hacker ? (read: are you a criminal/ terrorist?)
> >>> 10) have you ever had sex?
> >>>
> >>> ———————————-
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/dc655
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDii
> 501©(3) noin-profit
> stages * galleries * web
> PO Box 1086
> Cathedral Station
> New York, NY 10025
> http://plasmastudii.org
>
>

On 10 Nov 2005, at 18:47, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:

> Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
> and perception.

Unless you are creating a program to make art. Painting and art are
two different modes of thinking and perception. Otherwise every wall
is a masterpiece.

> When you write a program you already know what the result will be.

Even for a functional program like Emacs this is not the case. And
for art hacking it may certainly not be the case. Software may, and
often will, be unexpected. Only corporate managerialism prevents this.

> Art doesn't function in the same way.

It depends what kind of art.

> Often an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of
> thinking and perception.

This is the same as programming. A complex program will make demands
and afford possibilities during development that could not be predicted.

> Art is an ongoing cultural discussion.

As is computing. If there are domains outside cultural discussion,
this would be a very interesting phenomenon.

> Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger
> cultural discourse.

The larger "discourse" needs to take notice of computer/digital
culture *and its content*.

> Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs the
> question who is the judge?

Why? If standards are established, any competent individual can
judge. Unless we are assuming an institutional theory of art, in
which case computing can simply be nominated as art.

> Usually in a larger cultural discourse there is an ongoing debate
> about what constitutes "good" art.

Yes, the market demands this. If each season doesn't bring new
fashions, sales will drop.

> I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only
> people who know programming are truly digital artists to be rather
> narrow minded.

Why? If someone who did not know about the support structures of art
made pronouncements on support structures their ignorance would not
be a badge of honor.

> The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think about
> what the support structures are for art. You have collectors,
> museums, and governments. You can add the University and Academic
> realm as a support structure for art. Right now digital art has the
> most support from the Academic structure. In other words you get a
> teaching job.

This puts digital art on a par with science, literature and
"critical" "discourse". Hardly a bad thing.

> Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which
> it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and
> advance the art discourse.

For people who are interested in "challenge, "discourse" and
"advance". But there are more serious concerns for an art that
regards itself as not simply a lackspace for the projection of the
critical/market ego into.

> That's a much larger dscussion than whether someone knows
> programming or how a computer repaints a screen.

But it is a different discussion. I can't decide whether trying to
bring art computing to its heel is parochial or imperialistic.

- Rob.

> Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
> and perception.

You're very quick to drive a wedge between programming and art.

> When you write a program you already know what
> the result will be.

I have hundreds of files that consist of experiments in programming like i have hundreds of files that consist in experiments in writing. Far fewer finished pieces of each. When you read a published piece of writing or a published work of computer art, you can be fooled that the author knew what the result would be and just sat down and wrote it out, but that's not the way it proceeds. Much changes in the writing. This is true in art and programming. Unless, of course, it's someone else's idea that they just want written out. Imagine if it were typical that the artist just worked on the conceptual level and gave the painter or the musician or whomever instructions on what they wanted. Here, make a piece with these qualities and properties. The results would be pretty boring.

> Art doesn't function in the same way. Often
> an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of
> thinking and perception.

So does an artist-programmer.

> Art is an ongoing cultural discussion.

Yes it is.

> Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger
> cultural discourse.

Sure.

> Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs
> the question who is the judge? Usually in a larger cultural
> discourse there is an ongoing debate about what constitutes "good" art.
> I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only
> people who know programming are truly digital artists to be
> rather narrow minded.

I don't know any artist-programmers who believe that. But the good digital artists who aren't programmers understand that the art of programming is very important in works that involve programming, and they do not try to relegate it to a technician position but, instead, work with the programmers as artists. If they don't, that arrogance will get them nowhere. It certainly won't allow the production of significant art. If the programmer is indeed an artist, not simply a technician, then you can see how that would go. Basically nowhere slowly. If the programmer is a technician, it goes nowhere quickly.

> The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think
> about what the support structures are for art. You have
> collectors, museums, and governments. You can add the University
> and Academic realm as a support structure for art. Right now
> digital art has the most support from the Academic structure. In
> other words you get a teaching job.

I think I'm missing your point. Are you saying artists should get jobs teaching? To be able to sign the checks?

> Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which
> it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and
> advance the art discourse. That's a much larger dscussion than
> whether someone knows programming or how a computer repaints a screen.

Ah, well, nice to know what the question is. Thanks.

ja
http://vispo.com

This has been a discussion around here for a while. Here's a short post on my blog from.. it's says august of this year, but that can't be right… oh well the blog is f'd up:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html

In the post I argue that to make the analogy btw 'code' and 'paint' is faulty. The real analogy is between 'code' and 'form', that is, knowing programming as a digital artist is akin to knowing 2d formal theory as a painter (color, shape, line etc).

Obviously a painter doesn't need to understand 2d form to be a painter (a quick tour of Chelsea will prove that). One doesn't need to know it to be a good painter either (Darger being a somewhat flawed example). One doesn't need to know programming to be a digital artist. So the question goes back to what GH said, look at a thing in a larger discourse (not nm art, not digital art – but art) and decide if you think it's good.

But some types of work need programming skills by the artist and even the audience. I think much net art, if you don't *really* understand how the Internet works, you won't get it. If part of the subject of the work is computer languages, the Internet or if computation is part of the work the audience won't understand it if they don't grasp these concepts.

I think GH is arguing for a 'big tent' sort of philosophy – include everyone working in digital art? But that begs the question if we're urging folks to remove nm art from the nm ghetto, then why would you want to be in the tent at all?

On the other hand, there's nothing more annoying than having computer programmers look at nm or software art and judge it using standards of programming rather than look at it as art. For example, when Galloway released Carnivore, it was slashdotted. Many of the geeks there judged it by it's (to them) rather simple structure ('it's just a wrapper to some tcp-ip sniffer tool, etc blah, blah, etc'). They obviously missed the point.

Rob Myers wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2005, at 18:47, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
>
> > Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
> > and perception.
>
> Unless you are creating a program to make art. Painting and art are
> two different modes of thinking and perception. Otherwise every wall
> is a masterpiece.
>
> > When you write a program you already know what the result will be.
>
> Even for a functional program like Emacs this is not the case. And
> for art hacking it may certainly not be the case. Software may, and
> often will, be unexpected. Only corporate managerialism prevents this.
>
> > Art doesn't function in the same way.
>
> It depends what kind of art.
>
> > Often an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of
> > thinking and perception.
>
> This is the same as programming. A complex program will make demands
> and afford possibilities during development that could not be
> predicted.
>
> > Art is an ongoing cultural discussion.
>
> As is computing. If there are domains outside cultural discussion,
> this would be a very interesting phenomenon.
>
> > Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger
> > cultural discourse.
>
> The larger "discourse" needs to take notice of computer/digital
> culture *and its content*.
>
> > Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs the
> > question who is the judge?
>
> Why? If standards are established, any competent individual can
> judge. Unless we are assuming an institutional theory of art, in
> which case computing can simply be nominated as art.
>
> > Usually in a larger cultural discourse there is an ongoing debate
> > about what constitutes "good" art.
>
> Yes, the market demands this. If each season doesn't bring new
> fashions, sales will drop.
>
> > I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only
> > people who know programming are truly digital artists to be rather
> > narrow minded.
>
> Why? If someone who did not know about the support structures of art
> made pronouncements on support structures their ignorance would not
> be a badge of honor.
>
> > The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think about
> > what the support structures are for art. You have collectors,
> > museums, and governments. You can add the University and Academic
> > realm as a support structure for art. Right now digital art has the
>
> > most support from the Academic structure. In other words you get a
>
> > teaching job.
>
> This puts digital art on a par with science, literature and
> "critical" "discourse". Hardly a bad thing.
>
> > Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which
> > it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and
> > advance the art discourse.
>
> For people who are interested in "challenge, "discourse" and
> "advance". But there are more serious concerns for an art that
> regards itself as not simply a lackspace for the projection of the
> critical/market ego into.
>
> > That's a much larger dscussion than whether someone knows
> > programming or how a computer repaints a screen.
>
> But it is a different discussion. I can't decide whether trying to
> bring art computing to its heel is parochial or imperialistic.
>
> - Rob.

Some fragments about painting and code of my article "The Web.Artist Craft,
Some Considerations at http://www.sporkworld.org//index.php .


Painting and Drawing

"In my case, the craft of the web.artist involves painting with electronic
media. Given the kind of support medium I’ve chosen, whether it’s the screen
of my laptop or desktop, or the walls or floor of the rooms, my procedure is
no different from the one I use in my studio. I don’t design ideas in
advance. I let them happen, and they arrange themselves in the forms of
support I’ve chosen, then, slowing down, the gestures become deeper, as the
creative process increasingly requires a profound dialogue with what is
taking place on the screen, whether it is electronic or made from linen,
cotton or paper." [Aloysio Novis - http://www.geocities.com/aloysionovis/]

As Giselle Beiguelman (http://www.desvirtual.com/ ) aptly stated in a
conversation in the Rhizome community (09 - 2005), ”a mouse is not a
paintbrush…” and although there is a pen-mouse (which I’ve never used)
that is different from an ordinary mouse, I don’t believe it’s possible for
an artist to work and feel their work in the same way when using such
different tools. When painting there is a tangible medium - paint, which
makes a sloppy mess in cyan, yellow and magenta. In the case of computers,
what we have is light and pixels, and red, green, blue, a clean art and…a
certain limitation due to the software. Before I became a web.artist, I did
some painting on canvas, and I can’t see the similarity between these two
artistic expressions. These processes require completely different
reasoning. The only similarities are the creative tension that both of them
cause: the pleasure of creation. The same occurs with digital drawings: for
me, drawing on a sheet of paper is not the same as drawing on the computer
screen.

***************************************************

Programming skills

The web artist is the artist that creates and produce art utilizing the
lobes of his brain.[Clemente Padin -
ttp://arteonline.arq.br/spams\_trashes/ ] Does a web.artist have to be a
programming whiz?


Not all artists working on the web today are good programmers, but
programming is part of the set of necessary skills and makes a work of
“web.art” function at its best. Anyone who can create a program and make it
work exactly as they’d visualized it is an artist too - an artist of the
programming language or code. I believe that the act of creating new
programming code produces the same creative tension as any other act of
creation, such as painting, drawing, writing poetry or literature or
composing music… Well-crafted code is a work of art.

***************************************************

Conclusion?…



Deleuze has said that the great film directors are like the great painters
and musicians: they are the best at talking about what they do. But when
talking about it, they become something else - philosophers or
theoreticians…
I have written this as a web.artist, and at no time have I intended to
theorize or philosophize. I am still a web.artist, and the thing that most
enchants me about my craft are the following poems:

Weaver of particles, he tightens to Time an optical trap around the Earth.
[Patrick-Henri Burgaud - http://www.aquoisarime.net/index.htm/ ]

Web artists reach into the ether toward a dream of global sharing and
understanding” [Jim Andrews - http://vispo.com/ ]

And it is precisely because of this that I keep thinking that creating a
work of web.art does not require all the skills I’ve described here. All the
“web.artwork” has to do is move the people who visit it.

**************************************************

The article "The Web.Artist Craft: some considerations", is a complement of
the e.book I have launched last March, which has the same name: "The
Web.Artist Craft: some considerations", and has already two animated pages
at:

http://arteonline.arq.br/web\_art\_considerations/ .

Do not forget of move the mouse on the second page: "Fauve" ;-) in
Programming


This book will be done page by page.
If you have any consideration to do on the web.artist's craft, send me your
text and I will build a new animated book's page.
To see the subjects of the future pages, read the article "The Web.Artist
Craft: some considerations" at:

http://www.sporkworld.org//index.php

Let's organize (or not ;-)) the Web.Artist's Craft!

better screen resolution: 1024 X 768



Regina Celia Pinto

http://arteonline.arq.br/
http://arteonline.arq.br/library.htm

New Works:

http://arteonline.arq.br/magic\_walls/
http://arteonline.arq.br/eva/
http://arteonline.arq.br/ducks/

Computing is much more radical a departure from old media than is commonly appreciated. There is no proof, and probably never will be, that there are thought processes of which humans are capable and computers are not. So it isn't simply a matter of the poem departing from the page (or the painting from the canvas, etc) and taking on a slight change of properties owing to a change in medium. It also involves the page departing from the poem, as it were. The medium itself–computing–is as the stuff of the living. It can reproduce or alter itself. It can change its own code. It can do anything thinkable, can think anything thinkable and then some. Writing poems on an animal is a vain and pointless exercise. This animal is a language machine. Poetry and poetics, in such a situation, need take some very lively turns. And analogies that basically preserve the notion that computing is very like old media miss the radical departure. They just miss it.

Digital art can be radically different from what has gone before. Computing isn't simply an art medium but the protean itself. It is possible to understand this without knowing how to program or knowing any computer science. But to really act on it, the more you know, the better.

ja
http://vispo.com

Writing poems on an animal is a vain and pointless exercise.

I don't understand this bit…. could you explain???

Imagine a poet who gets it into his head that he will write poems
(literally) on animals. Tatoo animals with poems. Rather abhorrent. Though I
suppose it could be done while respecting the animal (and probably has been
done). Writing poems on a computer is not equally abhorrent or even
abhorrent at all. But, like the animal, computing is a totally different
page out of a totally different book, has a larger destiny and character
something of its own, and may well successfully resist being used in
ignorance of its nature.


Poetry and poetics, in such a situation, need take some very lively
turns. And analogies that basically preserve the notion that computing is
very like old media miss the radical departure. They just miss it.


How do they miss it exactly?? Perhaps computing isn't a medium??

It is media and, as well, any other types of machines that can be built.

It is one thing to make analogies between old media and computing media.
They can be useful. But if the writing does not give an indication, also,
that computing media departs radically from old media, then they miss the
radical departure.

ja
http://vispo.com

Jim Andrews wrote:











actually, I find that the Kenneth Koch Poem, The Circus, is one of my favorite pomes. there are animals all over the place,

but if you mean

Tiger, Tiger burning bright…

then maybe you are right.

i never liked that one.

but I love Pluto and Goofy, Donald and Daffy Duck, for whom poetry was an avenue of escape.

but later they said, the Elephants scared them.

Don't be afraid,the clowns afraid too.
Mingus Smingus.
well OK then,
good luck with that!
Eric

I think it's OK to tatoo animals with poems.
Especially sheep who have been shaved so that i can wear a nice wool sweater in the winter, which is always warmer than cotton or silk.
and the sheep might pick up some literary skills if the poems are good ones.
But if they are bad poems written by spinsters in Schenecdaty then that is an awful thing to do to the sheep. They should be exposed to great poetry , esp. if they are getting it tatooed permanently onto their bodies.
How emabarrassing it would be for sheep to have to live a lives as the bearers of bad poetry (burned into/onto their skin!).
my God that is really cruel.
We will need to have a contest, or a commission to determine what poems can be burned onto a sheeps hide.
Maybe a government department that can adjudicate the quality of sheep tatoo poetry.
And we could vote for a standard that kept the sheep from being embarrased by the poetry they will be forced to bear.
I think we need a web aite and forum to discuss this in detail before making any rash decisions..,
but what do I know.
Eric