On 3/7/2009, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >The most difficult part of conceptual art is sticking to your concept.
i'm only human. >On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM, james morris<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Pall, >> >> I've got to admit that I've had trouble too, understanding your >> MicroCodes. Sometimes I think I get it, other times I read what you've >> written and think I've been misunderstanding. >> >> The formal interpretation of code is instinctive when I view it, so >> trying to read code as something else, to value my human interpretation >> almost cut off from the formal meaning is really quite difficult that it >> just does not happen. >> >> Consequently my response is (or can be) almost blind to a human response, >> and involves elaborating upon the code. I always want code to do more, >> for the computer's interpretation of it put into action, to be >> satisfying for the viewer. So I don't think you're being stubborn, as >> although the concept is quite simple, it can be difficult to hold in >> ones mind, so stubborn repetition is quite useful. >> >> >> james. >> >> >> >> On 2/7/2009, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Hi Alan, >>>I'm probably just being overly stubborn to make a point. Of course the >>>idea of the "Seedbed" code is to play around with the dual meaning in >>>the line "touch $myself". And if I understand you correctly you're >>>simply pointing out the ways in which words and images evoke emotional >>>responses even though whatever mediates the words and/or images is >>>itself incapable of such emotional responses. This is just our way of >>>understanding things. We attempt, maybe even at a subconscious level, >>>to apply whatever is being mediated to our own selves (or someone >>>else's) to see how that affects us. But the interesting thing is that >>>whereas we usually see programming code as something to be interpreted >>>by a computer and then we interpret that interpretation, in this case >>>(and in fact this is the underlying concept of the Microcodes in >>>general) our interpretation of the code elicits a much stronger, more >>>meaningful response than an interpretation of the computer's >>>interpretation of the code. This is something I want people to >>>consider and be aware of, that's why I'm being so stubborn. I'm sure >>>there are people out there who experience some discomfort in reading >>>the "Seedbed" code. Some might even feel embarrassed, turned on, >>>ashamed or all of the above. If I didn't want people to feel this way >>>I wouldn't have associated it with "Seedbed". But I hope that they >>>will take the time to discover what the words as computer code really >>>mean and see the absurdity of it all. >>> >>>best r. >>>Pall >> .... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
