Hi Marc
This question resembles the "is art useless" thread that is sort of
current on rhizome. And before I start, there is nothing wrong with
going on about such fundamentals. The only thing is that one
shouldn't expect much headway to be made. (I always seem to expect
that anyway, but I know myself to be quite unrealistic)
So -- first of all, define "art". Then define "science". Then define
"programming". Then do the equation. But of course this is very
difficult and very time-consuming. And here again, I'd like to have
enough time and be smart enough to do that, but I lack on both counts
at the moment..
You say intention matters -- you might mean that there is a
difference between programming in order to make a work of art, and
programming in order to make a work of science. Or you might mean
that programming as an artist is different in some way from
programming as a scientist.
Just putting these into opposition helps. Because in the both
oppositions, the second node doesn't seem to fit the bill. Most
programming is equipmental. A scientist would employ a programmer to
deliver a piece of equipment with which to realize a project of
science. So the question then becomes: how is programming a piece of
equipment conceptually related to the science project? Any concrete
example of a project could clarify this.
Another quick look using an analogy. Painting is an art (arguably)
and also a craft, if not a science. As a craft, it is - again -
equipmental. (As for the notion of "equipment" - I'm reading
Heidegger at the moment) In our culture, art and craft have grown
apart in a huge way. Working within the trade of house-painting
implies working within a very different conceptual framework than
working within the framework of the arts. There are crossovers to be
imagined, and of course a large amount of influential post-war
american artists used industrial processes in their painting. To put
painting as an art and as a craft into opposition one would need to
oppose a worker in the framework of house-painting against a similar
role in the framework of the arts. Perhaps then the differences might
become more apparent.
Geert Dekkers---------------------------
http://nznl.com | http://nznl.net | http://nznl.org
---------------------------------------
On 4-mei-2007, at 12:34, marc wrote:
HI Rob & all,
In regards to the purity of the activity, one can understand the
'programming is ust programming' notion, but it gets interesting
when intentions and what the speciifc programming is for, as why do
the programming in the first place. To be honest I find hard to
disagree with anyone, mainly because I think that means many
different things to most people...
marc
Quoting Ken Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
programming is - I agree just programming.
Historically it's mathematics or electrical engineering. I find
"computer science" far too grand a name. It's just hacking. It's
certainly not art, art is not functional and code cannot be faked.
Societies see themselves in terms of their enabling technologies
(see Bolter's "Turing's Man"). Our enabling technology is
computing machinery. So artists will quite naturally wonder
whether code is art and art is code, and writers will get some
mileage from this.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
