Hi all, Here's another "sketch" where I'm sort of wrapping my head around these ideas. Used my dog, Hambae, for this one.
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/hambae/ On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Pall Thayer <pallt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bruno. Didn't you and I share a hotel room in Bergen, NO many years ago? > > I think I get your point. Yes, programming code is like a blueprint in a > way. That blueprint then gets interpreted by a computer or software and > then turns into an action. A movie or play script is also a blueprint but > one that gets interpreted by humans. Obviously, a human "interpretation" of > something is going to be a lot more flexible than a computer's > interpretation of code. Therein lies the main difference between those two > schematics. What I'm proposing is a bit of a hybrid. If I feel that my own > (human) interpretation of a piece of code is going to make the outcome > somehow better (or just different, if people prefer), then I'm going to do > so from the perspective of a human who knows full well how the code will > perform when interpreted by the computer. So it's still grounded in a more > restrictive outcome than a movie or play script. If I allow myself too much > freedom in my interpretation, then I might as well abandon the programming > code part and we're basically back to 60s conceptualism. I'm looking for > something similar but different. > > I do believe that the text of programming code can stand on its own as > works of art and have pursued that angle for several years in my Microcodes > (http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/microcodes/) and Object Oriented Art Code ( > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/stealthiscodeart/). I see the ideas that I'm > pitching here as my "logical next step". > > Best r. > Pall > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:53 AM Bruno Vianna via NetBehaviour < > netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > >> hi Pall >> >> I don't know if I'm playing devil's advocate or standing for your >> point, but it comes to my mind the idea of a blueprint, which is not >> exclusive to code. Wouldn't a script for a movie, the lines of a >> play, be also forms of laying out a final shape? And these codes >> (text) are also self-standing pieces of art? I could go even further >> and think of the frames of a movie compared to the screened result in >> a session. >> >> In case, the argument is very interesting. >> >> Bruno >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:13 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
