Thanks for your message. I hope things turn out alright for your
relative.
Fundamentals matter -- but they are very hard to articulate. Which is
probably why I admire a writer such as Heidegger, who poses and
analyzes questions around Art, Being and Work. (I'm reading Heidegger
at the moment -- ask me the same in a couple of months time, it might
be another.)
What interests me most is that he (and others who succeed in at least
asking the question in any detail) have found a method to discuss the
problem posed. In Heidegger, the method has to do with the close
reading of his (Greek) predecessors, the detailed analysis of their
language. This close proximity to language is an important part of
his work, IS his work. He works through language, language is his clay.
For an artist to want to discuss art in this manner is something of a
misnomer. An artist lives through art, defines art by making art. The
object of his/her proximity is another -- it is, of course, the
ground with which is worked. This might be taken quite literally as
in a traditional sculptor, or might be more abstract, or more
ethereal. It might be TCP/IP. I'd say that this proximity to the
ground material matters very much for the artist. And perhaps that is
what you were saying by using the word "intention".
Proximity - nearness in time, space, relationship - to the ground
material is what sets the artist apart from the craftsman. Its a
mindset that makes the artist want to get really close to the
materials, to really get to know each detail. Lyotards Libidinal
Economy uses the metaphor of the (human) skin and I think a quote
from this work will serve nicely to make my point. Here, the reader
is in first person view as s/he is lead over the skin as over a
landscape. This is a small segment of the first chapter The Great
Ephemeral Skin: "Opening the Libidinal Surface - Open the so-called
body and spread out all its surfaces: not only the skin with each of
is folds, wrinkles, scars, with its great velvety planes, and
contiguous to that, the scalp and the mane of hair, the tender pubic
fur, nipples, nails, hard transparent skin under the heel, the light
frills of the eyelids, set with lashes - but open and spread, ..."
Its this closeness to the base material that I'm interested in, and I
think that this proximity is the most important difference between
the "intention" of the artist vs that of the crafts. It's a closeness
that could also be called love.
Geert Dekkers---------------------------
http://nznl.com | http://nznl.org | http://nznl.net
---------------------------------------
On 8/05/2007, at 2:06 PM, marc wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
