 |
Author |
Topic: code != art (Read 3017 times) |
|
Martin
    
 
|
code != art
« on: Apr 19th, 2003, 7:05pm » |
|
there exists some written work and live people who preach that code is not art, nor should code be considered to realize the soul of digital art. what's your take on this?
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #1 on: Apr 19th, 2003, 11:42pm » |
|
People think too highly of the word 'art'.
What is or isn't art is an argument for freshman philosophy students to discuss. In my opinion, giving yourself restrictions or guidelines in anything you do is just setting yourself up for failure.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2003, 11:44pm by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #2 on: Apr 20th, 2003, 9:37am » |
|
re: people thinking too highly of art... hmm... commercialization of art?
but isn't freshman philosophy the beginning and would inifinitely serve as the fundamental grounding on how people think?
re: restrictions, guidelines, limits... then almost all research works are set-ups for failure? 
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #3 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 6:11am » |
|
on Apr 20th, 2003, 9:37am, Martin wrote:but isn't freshman philosophy the beginning and would inifinitely serve as the fundamental grounding on how people think
re: restrictions, guidelines, limits... then almost all research works are set-ups for failure |
|
i referred to the topic of 'what is art' being a freshman philosophy discussion as a way to get out of the clichés that plague philosophy discussions, similarly to a painting instructor using free painting time. never has there been a clear definition of what is or isn't art.
in my opinion, i don't think many of the great writers on art thought of it as a good question. it just has little value, and it's missing the idea entirely.
it's similar to the 'great' philosophers never asking clear questions like "is there a god" , because it's unimportant, what's important is what one thinks of god, what emotions are conveyed, and if the idea of a god matters at all.
in my mind, the idea of art is something people find important but it's hard for them to understand why. i have found people often try to defend themselves (like you pointed out, many people claim code isn't art), i think this because people really are never comfortable with themselves when it comes to the topic.
i blame this on the wrong questions being asked. everyone is too vague with their questions, they never truly ask themselves what is important, and what isn't. most importantly, they never ask what art means to them.
as for research within 'art', i don't think many of whom we call artisans set limits, guidelines, or restrictions within their work. we leave these for the engineers and scientists. 
i'm sorry if this post sounds angry, i'm a stressed art student and i'm slightly drunk.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 21st, 2003, 6:14am by Allen » |
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #4 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 6:39am » |
|
on Apr 20th, 2003, 9:37am, Martin wrote:| re: restrictions, guidelines, limits... then almost all research works are set-ups for failure |
|
nah, restrictions are what are imposed on a situation. things like research into specific areas have the ability to grow through the natural process of selection that goes on in every person's mind. had we all grown up without the word "art" in the english language, or indeed any language through which we as a society commune, we would each come up with different forms of work, but they would likely solve each of our individual problems in different ways, and to us they would each be beautiful.
i believe the word "art" only really exists so that we can as a society provide insitutions to allow people who enjoy doing the same kind of thing, to get together. of course, this is applied to each "industry", and we end up with a whole range of distinctions. but the point is, the word itself is at its best a descriptor for use in the index of a magazine or book, and only really becomes useful when there is a bit of a consensus on what the word points to in reality.
art, the subject of its word, like the shifting sands of culture, is always changing in every one of us. i don't believe anyone should change what they like doing just because of a few cylables.
to throw some wood on the fire, i think each industry must look at its best work and think "that's art!"
surely if enough people create good lookin' code that means something to a good number of people, it would be considered art. the word only becomes a restriction when individuals or small groups care about the opposing definition of the dominant entities.
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
Koenie
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #5 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 11:41am » |
|
I think it was Piet Mondriaan who said something like this once: We shouldn't try to make art. We should try to make beauty.
Koenie
|
http://koeniedesign.com
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #6 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 4:34pm » |
|
yes, see for every artist with a certain opinion of what art is and should be, you will find ten more who spent their lives working in opposition. everyone has an oppinion, and artist are extremely willing to talk about theirs.
i dont think many artists can really feel alone in their feelings. the last few centuries are particularly well documented, and such a huge range of theories have come about in that time. i sometimes think that the only true artist these days is someone who can come up with something that doesn't have direct relations with any number of named artists.
i suppose the post-modernists tried to argue that it isn't possible to come up with something "new" anymore... but how is it possible that artist could have in the past found "new" things? surely an artist working 100yrs ago would have looked back across the millenia of artists working solidly, and say "surely it would have all been done before..." if all we do, is reinterpret what has come before, where did ideas begin? have ideas existed eternally, interweaving their ways through nature to find themselves in our minds? i'm not a godfearing man, so i'd prefer to think that the whole thought thing is a bit of a construct anyway, that ideas are only perceived and projected, and that evolution in the mind, body and spirit brings about complexity and/or harmony.
i'd prefer to think that the results are in
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #7 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 4:37pm » |
|
back to the original question, i see no reason to give negative thoughts a place in my mind, if coding is what i consider beautiful in this world (not that coding is the only thing i find beautiful in this world).
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #8 on: Apr 21st, 2003, 10:22pm » |
|
therefore, art is a form of self-expression. given that coding is a way to express one's thoughts, coding is art. even this entry is art.
beauty and madness, is there a difference?
|
|
|
|
|
Allen
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #9 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:23am » |
|
I'm sobered up, and a tad embarrassed, but I want to comment that there are many whom we consider artists that put no self-expression into their work. A few examples of this:
Autechre, the Warp Records duo often creates randomly generative tracks that just grow on uncontrollable variables. Rarely do they hear the tracks before they are released to the public, no added production or edits are ever done. And in my opinion it's some of the most emotional music ever released.
I'm also reminded of a story one of my professors told me about an instructor who was playing on this theme. He wrote some very loose and unspecific instructions on drawing circles and ellipses on a large canvas. When the students finished drawing the shapes he sold it as his own. The 'artist' didn't put any effort into the end result, he has no clue what the outcome was but yet the public viewed as an art piece.
Just some more things to think about ...
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #10 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 2:35am » |
|
but surely there will always be some separation of work from its creator, it's just a matter of how pronounced it is, and whether or not you're willing to pay for it!
maybe, in any society, big or small, art is just that lump of interesting crap outside the edge of boringness, that no-one knows what to label  after all, what does the word "normal" mean?
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #11 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 8:16am » |
|
on Apr 22nd, 2003, 12:23am, Allen wrote:| I'm sobered up, and a tad embarrassed, but I want to comment that there are many whom we consider artists that put no self-expression into their work. A few examples of this... |
|
i've got an alternate situation for you. a couple of excelent programmers/educators decide to come up with some software that will help lots of other people do some pretty cool art. of course, credit for the art would go to the seperate artists concerned, but the initial designers of the software have obviously helped a great deal in the development of that art, and (arguably) by of it would not have occurred without them. i don't think the word "art" can be used wholistically - we should be more specific about what we mean in each individual situation. certainly some code will be beautiful art, but other code will be worthless stuff that clutters up ur hard disk.
-jacob
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #12 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 8:33am » |
|
in sum, what is worth?
|
|
|
|
|
Koenie
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #13 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 9:24am » |
|
To compare 2 things, shouldn't you know what they are before you start comparing them? What exactly is art?
Some explanations in this entry tried to explain it, but it didn't seem to be correct.
Koenie
|
http://koeniedesign.com
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #14 on: Apr 22nd, 2003, 10:04am » |
|
i think it actually contradicts the term itself to define the word "art" before looking at the subject, or specific instance. you can look at something and say, "that's art", but you can't go into a studio and say, i think all our art should have so-and-so features.
|
|
|
|
|
|
