It's interesting when the two come together; I'm thinking of work I've done (and I'm sure others have) with abacus/abaci? - they're an odd mixture (today) of digital and analog of course, and when I was teaching (= allowed to teach), I used them to develop the idea of potential wells, errors, and so forth. The movement of a bead could be considered the change of a pixel, particularly in the 1 position. I hope it's possible to develop the idea of the physical somehow - within the browser or other active digital environment, the pixel is always already potential; I keep thinking of things like a lead cube on a matrix that's heated so maybe in a century it falls off its support...
fascinating, Alan On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour < netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > As some on this list know, for many years, I've been pushing the notion > that programming code should be viewed as an artistic medium when it's used > to create art. The artist molds it into shape, as they would with a lump of > clay, until it takes its final form. When I've discussed these ideas, I've > always gotten a lot of pushback. People will say that programming code is a > tool, like a paintbrush, not the medium, like paint. I don't agree. This > notion has piqued my interest again in the wake of a rising trend where > artists are creating graphic images by only using HTML/CSS (e.g. > https://a.singlediv.com/ , https://diana-adrianne.com/purecss-francine/ ). > > The problem with computer programmed art, however, is that it requires a > computer. In my mind, there really hasn't been any justifiable reason to > display computer programmed art on anything other than a computer... unless > it adds something significant to the work. And this is something > interesting that has recently occurred to me. I came up with this really > simply piece: > > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/ > > And have decided that this piece, although based entirely on computer > programming code, will work better when divorced from the computer and the > browser's interpretation of the code. On my 4k screen, it's practically > impossible to see the red pixel in the center. If I remove the work from > the environment that interprets the code, I'm free to determine the size of > a single pixel: > > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/notApixel.png > > And I could choose to produce that piece in any physical material I want. > It could be a block of wood glued to a panel of wood. What determines the > size of a pixel of wood? What determines the result of a hexadecimal color > code when it's been removed from the computer? If the code is to be > interpreted in wood, what does #f00 mean? > > My main point is that with the example shown above, the piece can be made > to work better at a conceptual level than it would if it were not removed > from the browser environment. > > I'd love to hear other people's ideas on this. I did just write this all > off the top of my head, so if I'm rambling and things don't make sense, > just ask and I'll do my best to clarify. > > Pall Thayer > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
