Hi Curt, I think you're absolutely right, and i will use the terms "networked picture". i don't really need to use the word "painting", i finally think it's more interesting to keep eventual references to painting more in the background. So here is my new short statement:
" My work is about distances and convergences between the analog and the digital, between the virtual and the actual, between abstraction and instantiation processes. I make networked pictures. They are composed and produced online by networked devices. All devices are built on almost the same model: visual sensors (eg: photography, stills from video) are taking pictures in an environment, these pictures are then transformed by online softwares and finally they are shown to the spectator. Variations in this main model allow each device to address more specific problematics in the field of networked pictures. " Thanks everyone for this fruitful thread. best, yann Curt Cloninger a écrit : > Hi Yann, > > My question still stands regarding what is gained and what is lost by > using the term "painting" to describe this work. [As Alan points out, > the terms "gain" and "loss" are problematic/subjective (as all terms > are), but that doesn't mean they are pragmatically useless or > critically irrelevant, particularly when posed to you as a practicing > artist.] In your description of the work below, you use the word > "picture" rather than painting. I think you are right to use the word > picture rather than painting -- these "pictures" seem better > understood as digital photographs (modified algorithmically according > to network input). So what is gained and what is lost by calling them > "networked paintings" as opposed to something like "networked > photographs?" > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Just by way of comparison, here is a great project of what might be > termed "generative drawing": > http://noemata.net/time().mt_rand/gallery.php > artist statement here: > http://noemata.net/time().mt_rand/gallery.php?i=text > create your own "drawings" here: > http://noemata.net/time().mt_rand/larding.php > curate and sell your own drawings (and the drawings of others) here: > http://noemata.net/time().mt_rand/curator.php > > Regarding the above work, technically... > There is an amount of source material created by the "artist" (a > database of scanned analog doodles). > There is a generative environment with parameters established by the "artist." > The "user" is allowed to input certain variables into that environment. > The result is a "collaborative" piece of work which is purposefully > situated within an online "economy." > > The project above is fruitfully approached from a critical > perspective as "drawing," but the artist also draws attention (by the > term "larding") to Oulipo poetry and (by the title "time().mt_rand"), > to computer time-stamping procedures. To me, the para-art language > that the artist uses to contextualize this piece of work foregrounds > salient, relevant aspects of the work, both in terms of the "art > history" of drawing and the contemporary new media "theory" of > computational, networked, interactive art (not to mention issues of > curation, web 2.0 rebloggability as a form of curation, salability of > the art object, online economies, "originality" of the artist, > "uniqueness" of the art object). In other words, the language that > the artist uses to talk about the work is very much aware of what the > work itself is doing in the world (on+off-line). More is gained than > is lost by this kind of para-art language. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > My critique is not of your work. Your project itself interestingly > foregrounds the "unique/original" reception of a "single" piece of > work, by encoding elements of that unique reception into the > "singular" piece of work itself. It is very much related to > Benjamin's observations regarding the difference between viewing a > unique/original auratic object (be it a panting or a stationary > sculpture) and viewing a mechanically reproduced object (be it a > print, an analog photograph, a movie, a video, a digital photograph). > My hesitance is with your use of the word "painting" in the language > of your artist statment. Given the work you are describing, that word > "painting" seems too underdetermined and vague. It stakes too broad a > claim. It opens up all sorts of tangential cans of worms (flatness, > brushstroke, materials, abstraction vs. figuration, "subjectivity" of > the artists eye vs. "objectivity" of the camera lens, etc.) that the > work itself is not (yet) opening up. Undoubtedly "painting" is useful > in other contexts to desecribe other pieces of new media work (some > of Mark Napier's work comes to mind as very "painterly" in terms of > his treatment of code and in terms of the texture of his resultant > visuals). But "painting" as applied to this work seems to lose more > than it gains. > > Best, > Curt > > >> (well, i try another reply strategy in order to allow this post to go >> through the list, let's test...) >> >> >> In reply to Curt Cloninger : >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/20100316/014853.html >> >> Yes, that's for me a very important point to address. In several works >> (1) i use the IP address of the spectator to compose the picture, so the >> picture is unique according to this spectator. The picture takes place >> only where the spectator is looking at it. From this point of view >> (reception, uniqueness of the picture), it seems that it has more >> to do with painting than with photography or algorithmic generative art. >> >> This is conceptually ok if i don't save generated pictures and show them >> to others. It's a another possibility, but it changes the relation >> between the spectator and the picture, and as a consequence, the nature >> of the picture. 'Networked painting' is a way to explore this >> relational/interaction space between users/spectators and pictures. >> >> >> (1) examples: >> http://www.yannleguennec.com/works/laval-bridge/ >> http://www.yannleguennec.com/works/found-shape-on-the-ground/square/01/ >> >> best, >> yann >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
