Hi Bob, Marc, list > "Art forms have their technical aspects. Artists are forever learning, > playing, working and experimenting with the technology at their > disposal. Tools for the job. Means and ends. Artists are largely > focused on the latter; the ability to use the tools is presumed." > > "However when it comes to digital/new media/net art, discussion of the > technical aspects still seems to predominate. Do you think that's in > the nature of the technology? Or will there come a time when 'new > media' artists won't have to talk like Formula 1 engineers?"
Short answer: There will be indeed a time 'new media' artists won't have to talk like Formula 1 engineers. But not because their discourse has changed, but because their lingo will have been absorbed in popular culture, or on the other hand made completely obsolete just like the technology they once used. (which is why it is always difficult to talk about "new media" without any context attached to it) Long (non)answer: As Heather just said, my previous post was a technical answer to a technical question, and indeed pure:dyne is a platform to allow us, and a few others, to make art or anything creative with artistic software. But this platform is not art. It's a software environment (and I won't get into the neoclassical code as craft thing either). Back to the question, I don't know if it can be answered or not. As it is formulated now, it's very difficult to come up with something that would be really satisfying because it might carry a couple of cans of worms attached to it. For example, I believe it is not possible to generalise on the fact that technical aspects predominate in new media art, without first making a distinction between, on the one hand, artists operating in the field of new media with a complete technology illiteracy and who need technicians to implement their concept, and on the other hand, artists who can code and coders who make art. That sounds trivial, but it's often forgotten or left as a detail from the art perspective. But in my eyes it's very relevant. In the 1st case the technological factor is little or not present because the artist see the technic as just a support or an enabler to illustrate an idea/concept. Nothing new, and it's something common no matter from which angle it is seen: from the relationship contemporary conceptual artists and designers have with craftmanship, or from the engineers/artists post E.A.T. collaborative dreams point of view. In the second group, though, "artists who can code and coders who make art" it is true that technology is predominant, but this *not* predominant compared to something else that would be in minority, such as art. It is predominant because it *is* art, the good old concept/technic dichotomy cannot apply here, and any attempt will end up in this deadlock where one will try to look for something which is right under his nose. Of course there are important variations within this field as well. For example an artist who can program might build an imaginary based on a very badly programmed, but creative software art, or an artistic interpretation of technology that would sound like pseudoscience. At the other extreme, a programer making art will have the tendency to focus much more be in the technical process and the manifestations of this underlying mechanics would be treated as side effects or illustrations of these. In real life, such extremes exists, but things are generally a bit more balanced, but what is important is that in both case software is seen as something much closer to a medium rather than something like a tool. It is up to an artist to stay in the safe frame of the "material>tool>object" instruments and the multimedia metaphors (digital paint, virtual canvas, etc) or to decide to explore what software as artistic medium has to offer. In this situation the technology is either transparent or its structure used as platform to reflect upon an idea. The understanding of software as technology is mandatory here of course. But what seems to appear as a mass of overwhelming technical information is just language to express and explore ideas that cannot be expressed otherwise. a. PS: No idea how Formula 1 works ;) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
