beautifully put geert, thank you. really clear. i enjoy these discussional threads but rarely - for me anyway - does an email come out of them worth saving.
i'll keep this one. :) r. > 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 > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
