That's why we need computers. Sometimes we're just too human. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM, james morris<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
-- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
