This was originally written in response to a discussion on the Rhizome mailing list where the majority of participants were US based. I've found that these McLuhanesque ideas are more prominent there than here in Europe. I also come from a painting background and to tell the truth, when people on Rhizome first began talking about "media" in realtion to computer-based art, I was bewildered. What they were talking about just didn't sync with what I had learned in art school. After getting my MFA in Canada (McLuhan was from Canada) I understood better and I saw the flaws in the reasoning and why my ideas regarding media were not in sync with that of the North Americans. That's what this article describes. McLuhan didn't really talk that much about art per se. So transferring his ideas directly over to art comes with setbacks (in my opinion) which causes misunderstandings regarding the nature of the work.
> Okay. So an artist who hires coders is going to loose some of the benefit > of having a personal insight into the creative process of coding. No. No one loses or gains anything. As I mention in the article, it's not a qualitative difference, just a difference. So the nature of work made by someone who hires coders is going to be different than the nature of work done by someone who does their own coding. This says nothing about one being better or worse than the other. On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:26 PM, james morris<[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/6/2009, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi James, >>Much of what you're talking about really is outside of the scope of >>this writing. All I was doing was explaining why it matters that some > > Oh well I did not see that. I found what you said interesting and what I > wrote was just what it lead me to think about. > >>computer-based artists write their own code and others get someone >>else to do it. The primary point I'm making is that the medium that >>the artist works directly with (hands on) "defines and guides the >>creative process" and that because of the impact that McLuhan has had, > > Okay. So an artist who hires coders is going to loose some of the benefit > of having a personal insight into the creative process of coding. > >>we should consciously rethink what we mean when we talk about "medium" >>in regards to computer-based and electronic art because it has not >>been the same as what is meant when we talk about media such as "oil >>on canvas" and "granite". There have been debates about what the > > I never studied media studies so I'm not at all familiar with McLuhan. > At university I was a painter. Now that i'm using code in an artistic > context it is natural for me now to think of it as a medium. > >>digital artist's "medium" is with the focus being on the delivery of >>the work as opposed to the creation. One of the reasons I began making >>my Microcodes was to push the point that my medium is code. It's not >>the screen or the internet. The work becomes what it is because I'm >>personally creating it at the code level. Even the ideas and concepts >>I come up with, are dependent on how I see their possible creation in >>code. Whether or not I think I can execute the concept in a compelling >>manner at this code level is the initial measure that determines >>whether or not I'll attempt to execute it at all. > > For you to say the screen is your medium is a bit like Jackson Pollock > saying the gallery is his medium. > >>If we can agree that code is a distinct artistic medium , I don't think >>we should break it up and subclass different languages as different >>media. That's just unnecessarily complex and confusing. Sure, back in >>the sixties there were people who would list their medium as "Liquitex >>on canvas" but that was mostly just because it wasn't yet commonly >>known what "acrylic paint" was and some people probably assumed that >>"liquitex" would become the generic term for acrylic paint much like >>what happened with the term "aspirin". > > We agree that code is a distinct artistic medium but I don't agree it > should not be broken up. There's paint and there's code. There's oil > paint, and water colour, and there's Lisp and C. You can't work with > oil paint in the same way as you use water colour, and you can't work > with Lisp in the same way you write C. > > James. > >>best r. >>Pall >> >>On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, james morris<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Pall, >>> >>> I want to ask if you could elaborate on the last sentence? Or do I mean, >>> elaborate on the differences? Anyway, just my agreements, extraneous >>> comments, and questions, below which i'm not sure add much to what >>> you've already said or particularly matter. >>> >>> James. >>> >>> I think if you're an artist writing code... as an artist who writes >>> code... when doing so, code _is_ the fundamental medium being >>> manipulated. >>> >>> can the chosen code language be considered analogous to a choice of oils >>> or acrylics etc (or stone wood concrete etc) ETC? >>> >>> but then what does the code do? there is definitely a hierarchy of >>> mediums, for example writing code which produces code: PHP >> HTML. Is >>> the HTML a by-product medium or as equally the medium as PHP? >>> >>> Then with PHP it's most likely going to be on the internet, which may or >>> may not be important, and the screen being the least important in the >>> medium hierarchy _unless_ visual appearance is an important aspect. >>> >>> does the code even do anything, is writing in code which does not >>> function as code anything to do with this? the fact is code is just >>> text, which can also play a role (but the thinking is going to be >>> entirely different). >>> >>> if you're an artist writing (functioning) code, the code can take on a >>> life of its own as much as has been said of any other more traditional >>> medium. i'm sure coding has been likened with the tradition sculptural >>> anecdote - it all already exists, it's just a matter of chipping away >>> at it. >>> >>> perhaps when you're finished the bulk of the code and you're left with >>> the tweaks and then the medium is not so much code? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/6/2009, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>I'm releasing something I wrote last year because it's becoming >>>>relevant now. A short one-pager explaining some basic ideas regarding >>>>code as a medium. >>>> >>>>http://pallit.lhi.is/microcodes/artists_that_write_code.pdf >>>> >>>>Also accessible from the Microcodes site at http://pallit.lhi.is/microcodes >>>> >>>>Pall >>>> >>>>-- >>>>***************************** >>>>Pall Thayer >>>>artist >>>>http://www.this.is/pallit >>>>***************************** >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>NetBehaviour mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>***************************** >>Pall Thayer >>artist >>http://www.this.is/pallit >>***************************** >> >>_______________________________________________ >>NetBehaviour mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
