Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency
I really like this idea, Antoine: Like Philip Galanter said somewhere some time, 'In medieval times painting was about God. With the Enlightenment painting was about man. In Modern times painting was about paint. And now in Postmodern times painting is about painting.' I don't know where we stand now in Art History, but there is no reason why processual art should (or should not) be about processes (or processing). But maybe, another way of saying this (painting about God---man---paint---painting---) is to say that the history of art is a developing encounter with agency. As philosophers have chased down concepts like truth, perhaps artists remain engaged with the idea of practical agency. And, at its most basic level, isn't working from concept to artifact a process of giving form to an impulse against the backdrop of material limitation? Davin On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Antoine Schmitt a...@gratin.org wrote: Dear Yann, I think that our respective opinions are not incompatible... Just to be precise, I indeed consider that programs, computers and processes are an artistic mean (call it a tool, medium, material, whatever, we can argue interestingly on the best notion..). Then with this mean, we as artist do address subjects, themes, have intentions, talk about something. And with processual art, we can address any theme, including the theme of programs and computers. I understand and agree with your idea that computers, internet and programs today constitutes an environment for us humans, that blends into the real environment of atoms (and moreover a programmable environment which is a nice concept). This is very interesting and new and contemporary, and even real shit. But, but, but, there is no reason that any processual artist _should_ address this subject when using programs and processes as an artistic material. Like Philip Galanter said somewhere some time, In medieval times painting was about God. With the Enlightenment painting was about man. In Modern times painting was about paint. And now in Postmodern times painting is about painting. I don't know where we stand now in Art History, but there is no reason why processual art should (or should not) be about processes (or processing). But of course, it is very tempting, practical and adequate to use it just for that, especially in a world, as you say, that is more and more processual itself, and where the process paradigm (point of view) is more and more prevalent. In a world where God, man, processes, processing and processors tend to become just the same thing. Le 28 mai 10 à 19:58, Yann Le Guennec a écrit : Antoine Schmitt a écrit : Le 25 mai 10 à 06:38, christopher sullivan a écrit : a computer IS a tool Of course a computer is a tool, like anything else that an artists uses to create the artwork, like paint or programs. The fact is that it is a very special tool because it executes programs that implement processes. Programs and processes provide the artists with a new way to make artworks. I think that this new way is radically new, but this is another discussion. It is new and different. And we like it (indeed). So, from a materialist perspective, if you consider for example that there is a computer in your car, one in your cellphone, both communicating with satellites, and computers from your cellphone operator, and computers from your car provider, and other systems on the road, etc... softwares and data are able to circulate from one point to another in this network, with or without your knowledge. Do you consider this kind of system is a tool or an environment ? Something you can use or something you are in ? Surely both, i think this is more like an environment, an usable environment, like a forest or city, but an environment. Today's cloud computing and ubiquitous computing are going that way. And considering that all radio communications (Wifi, GSM, bluetooth..) ,are literally going through our bodies, we are now physicaly living *in* computers. But when i say that a computer is an environment and not (just) a tool, i think more about the logic contained in computed processes, based on boolean logical doors. When you use such tools, you must accept them, and adapt your mind to this kind of processes, your mind is in the process, the process surrounds it, it's an archetypal environment made of binary digits and processors. At another level, this logic is now everywhere in the social, economical, political space. All these spaces are computed, processed by processors, and that's why we really live now in the computer, and that's why i can't see it just like a tool anymore. So now the question could be: how is integrated processor's logic in processual art ? Best, Yann ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ++ as
Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
Hi Antoine, I agree with you that processual art and even self-referantial processual art can deal as much with serious shit than any other type of artwork. Aymeric's expression serious shit is referring to an earlier mail from Lucas Evers:if art can reach beyond the processes it is reflecting on. if scientific process can be interesting raw material for artists, can they really work with it and work with the natural sciences and its findings, can art be of importance to scientific methods, programs, processes? can new forms of collaborative practices in their methodology build on notions of the digital mean something for social change or more modest mean something for community art? (...) i might sound naive but i am interested in art engaging in processes that are beyond the representational factor of art and what that does to art and its autonomy. that question not only converns art, but also politics, the societal, science. i think this is a relevant question in a world so radically changing. I'm not sure if art can go totally beyond the representational. Especially in the context of art institutions this becomes problematic. . Lucas, do you have some good examples of art that go beyond the representational and mean something for the other fields that you mentioned? Best Maria Driessens Verstappen Hi, more opinions : - processual art vs. dealing with serious shit : there is no intrisic reason why processual art (or any technologically-based art or media art) should be more adequate to deal with serious shit than any other artform. Serious shit is the subject. The means, tools, material can be anything, including processual art. And I don't find that the processual art that I see in exhibitions actually deal more (or less) that other forms of art with serious shit. - contemplative vs. dealing with serious shit. There is no intrisic reason why contemplative self-referencial works, in processual art or in painting or whatever, will actually deal less with serious shit than any other more engaged types of artworks (as per Marias demonstration below). Or maybe we should agree on what serious shit refers to. Le 19 mai 10 à 14:12, Maria Verstappen a écrit : Dear Aymeric, On May 19, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Aymeric Mansoux wrote: The problem is that usually what is emerging is too often perceived as a by-product of the process, which only gives to the audience only two opposite positions in between which they can navigate: On the one hand a passive state of contemplation - and here we could probably, indeed, develop the argument of an artist-god delivering honesis to the masses, or on the other hand, an active position of treasure hunting investigator trying to decipher the processed used by the artist. Within this limited choice, like Simon mentioned in a previous mail, there is a risk that the work will appear naïve and simplistic, concerned with formal and abstract detail because it only refers to itself and does not take into account anything else but its own existence. In this case this would be working against Lucas' interest seeing such processes engaging with serious shit, not to mention missing the opportunity to understand the cultural impact of these processes if we focus too much on their underlying mechanical structure. These two positions are not opposite, they go hand in hand since an observer will only be willing to decipher the process if he/she is in some way intrigued by the generated output. A state of contemplation (observation) is needed to trigger analysis. It forms the basis of all natural sciences. Why is it seen as a limited choice in case of an artwork? For me the problem lies more in the difficulty of programming a bottom-up process that is able to generate an output that is intriguing (emergent) enough over a longer time span, that in some ways can compete with Nature, also on a visual level. In an ideal situation, the viewer is confronted with the process for a long time (months) instead of only having a glimpse of it during a gallery visit. This is a difficult and ambitious task and I wouldn't say that it is naive and simplistic to be concerned with formal and abstract detail. For me it is totally okay to make this kind of self-referential works because it doesn't mean that such works can not engage with the world outside. They can trigger deep reflections about life creation, autonomy intervention, artificial versus natural etc. Maybe in a more indirect, philosophical way than some artworks that explicitly engage with the serious shit . When presented in an institutional context, thése works often appear to me as being naïve, simple and pretentious. Most of the time the artists' intentions are good, but they seem to lack the consciousness that - if art really wants to influence the socio-political field in a more direct way - we first need to reestablish the basic foundations of the relationship
