Hi Geert,
Sorry for not answering when you first posted regarding this subject,
but a relative of mine is in hopsital, so I have been deeply involved in
visiting them and trying to hold the fort at this end at the same time...
...>
I have always found creativity interesting when (whether it is craft
based, art or programming) cross-overs occur. For me, this is when
things really begin to get interesting and more than usual, a bit messy
around the edges. The relationship of things and how they connect and
what comes about during and after this process is always fascinating but
sometimes can confuse the best and worst of us, and in between.
>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.
I probably approach this subject quite naturally with a spirit of an
artist, but am also aware that I have to acknowledge there are other
factors that influence or shape things as well. Net artists use code and
also programme, they are conscious about having to be creative whilst
engaged in the crossover of mixing different elements and skills to make
a work that uses technology as part of the make-up of their work.
>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.
This is a decent question, but I cannot answert that one...
Even though we are aware that a universality is not a true method of
understanding things these days, we cannot ignore that things are still
connected. Perhaps not in a way that actively compensates a mechanistic
framework of scientific understanding, but more in a context that in its
nature comes about through cultural shifts and advancements in theory,
practice and cross-over anomilies, which are more intuitively processed
via acts of shared human behaviour, rather than through logical finites
or structured notions of understanding.
If we need to define the difference or form a close representation of
say a skill, as in programming or coding, or the making a sculpture even
- it is generally considered an advantage to apply a set of specific or
appropriate measurement of skills to build or make something work well.
All necessary attributes that can be learnt either in an educative
environment, self-taught or both. I would not dare to presume that
coding or programming for a company that is selling shoes, is art, but I
would accept more easily that the process itself could be seen as an
imaginative/creative act regarding its own context.
By going through the act of being an artist, even as an anti-artist it
can be considered as a self-conscious act, whether this can be measured
to warrant one being an artist very much relies on their circumastance
in respect of culture, no matter how remote or connected they may be.
Intention or connected reason can help towards clarifying if something
is art or not. Yet, who decides is the more sticky point, especailly if
certain cultures are not open or adventurous in considering particular
ways of working as art in the first place. Net Art & Media Art, in the
past had this problem and probably still does in the world as a whole.
Although, things are changing...
Thankfully, we are engaged in experiencing crossovers that can bring
less obviouse forms of art to the fore which were not considered as art
before.
I tend to not get involved with questions about whether 'art is useless'
or not, for I do not really see the point in falinginto to such a verbal
vacuum. Art as an expansive field or arena or fluid concept, culturally
or on a personal level is; a very important space for anyone engaged in
such explorations. Much of what people do may not always fit well in the
everyday, when the world itself is so geared around economy, power,
consumerism and religion etc. Art, as a place to explore these less
maleable interests on one's own terms, a useful metaphysical,
incorporeal and poetic mind-shift, compensating for the lack of what our
everyday environments tend to ignore extensively as a value other then
as an object of desire or product.
In the end coding or programming is a skill and what matters is what you
use it for, this can potentially work towards definings its purpose and
relevance...
marc
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
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
