 |
Author |
Topic: code != art (Read 3019 times) |
|
Dara
 
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #30 on: May 12th, 2003, 6:32pm » |
|
there is a quotation by Rand at the beginning of the book, Maeda@Media by John Maeda
"...Art is primarily a question of form, not of content." - Paul Rand
and this one goes to pollux' answers list above.
|
|
|
|
|
oytun
    
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #31 on: May 13th, 2003, 10:19am » |
|
Yes but on the other side, form is created by "knowledge" and that’s where content starts to get in. Art serves the westerners and makes easterners become a little familiar about western thought and conceptions of economy- meaning that art is based upon a western social fact, even though other cultures today might be executing it.
Is code art? Why shouldn't it be? You put a whole lot more effort than many other branches of art. You have to sketch of what you think of and than execute that in by translating your thoughts into some device language.
What I think is that digital art is actually socially contributed art. No one person deals with the creation of the hardware, software and designing and, oh was just about to forget the content...Its designed by various professionals and the only issue is that to make our lives easier, in doing things and more complex; hence there are to many applications to deal with. I think that this brings newer concepts and changes the idea "art" into something else. This is about man reaching the limits of what it creates, the ability of knowledge being dominant on the creation process and making the object that creates creations itself. Some sort of holy thing going on I guess (not to mention)...So we could say there is digital art, but don't try to buy in the galleries or other conventional places because it is far too social and can be achieved by many. You could get the code or buy it, but, since this logical material it is possible for others to reach the solution you've figured out. This I think actually shows how creativity can be bordered and each time thinking like; you block your way to creativity. Once you start, you end up that the creation process seems to have infinite limits where art shows itself as an idea and later turns into an object. Art is not just form nor concept but both and that's why basically every material that has the capacity to achieve the creation of any object can be art (perhaps).
Is the code or the output art? I rather think on this because I think there are two major distinct creation sets;
1) Coding: thinking logically and figuring out solutions perhaps mathematically.
2) Designing: the output.
Well it is already far to complex than it was. I think digital things should not be considered as art in the conventional meaning, they are more designed than emotionally created.
|
-Oytun Gokhan
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #32 on: May 14th, 2003, 11:28am » |
|
is coding always thinking things out logically? there are always a huge (if not infinite) number of ways to get an outcome. for example, in that example of obfuscated code i linked to a few posts back, a program calculated the number pi by actually counting the number of dashes in an array shaped like a circle. certainly there's something mathematical about it, but most of us would remark on its elegance in terms of getting to the point... i think that this might be related to how we use language in general, or how meaning is packed into any reckogniseable shape or form. maybe that's what knowledge is.
|
|
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #33 on: May 18th, 2003, 3:47am » |
|
there's also the language issue, since the word "art", in different languages, can have different meanings, subtle differences.
that, and the eastern/western reference made by oytun, made me think about the answer to the original question (and all the ones generated later on) when asked in different contexts, cultures, environments. i can immagine the japanese culture must see art differently than peruvians, or norwegians.
also, people without acces to a computer, and knowledge of the use of it, could assimilate that code is art? if we reffer to the code itself, i higly doubt it, but who knows.
could even argue that (code != art) == true , since it takes into account the medium, which, by itself, is not art. like (paint != art), or (marble != art), (korg triton pro != art), (stradivarius != art), you get the idea...
but then, perhaps... stradivarius == art.
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #34 on: May 19th, 2003, 3:52pm » |
|
on May 18th, 2003, 3:47am, pollux wrote:| could even argue that (code != art) == true , since it takes into account the medium, which, by itself, is not art. |
|
actually i'd consider an empty .txt file to be more meaningful than much of the crap that's often put in them. or an empty html file, or (maybe) even an empty java file.
|
|
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #35 on: May 20th, 2003, 1:13am » |
|
sorry, couldn't resist it...
String creator = (code != art ? programmer : artist);
if (code != art) {
println("sorry but this is not art, folks!");
} else {
println("this is pure art, fellas!");
}
can somebody obfuscate this?? (hehe...)
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #36 on: May 20th, 2003, 2:58am » |
|
Code:
string art = {
\ /
~~
<
\^/
|
}
string code = {
100204180 // I ought nought to owe for I ate nothing (!Martin)
}
string artist=art;
string programmer=code;
String creator = (code!=art ? programmer : artist);
if (code.length != art.length) {
println("sorry but this is not art, folks!");
} else {
println("this is pure art, fellas!");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oytun
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #37 on: May 20th, 2003, 8:32pm » |
|
If "e equals m c square" can mean some type of art and if its output is aesthetic, does this mean every aesthetic thing is art? also does it mean every scientific solutions that is innovative, ingenious mean art?
Guess this some rubix cube that has various colors and it just continues on because its just not a cube.
|
-Oytun Gokhan
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #38 on: May 21st, 2003, 4:44am » |
|
on May 20th, 2003, 8:32pm, oytun wrote:| If "e equals m c square" can mean some type of art and if its output is aesthetic, does this mean every aesthetic thing is art also does it mean every scientific solutions that is innovative, ingenious mean art |
|
i'm currently of the opinion that whether or not something is art, depends entirely upon the reaction of each individual to an object, representation or accumulated conception...
if an equation can have an aesthetic, then certainly it can form art - and hooray, for that would mean that code can be art!
for the reverse question of aesthetics always being art, i'll say only this: if all cows with spots have some brown or black hide, does that mean that all cows with brown or black hide must have spots
as with all questions of ultimate interpretation, it really rests on how one's response is composed, as well as how common that composition of thought is, within a society. ie, whether or not you can look at something - be it object or conveyed idea - and say "that IS art!" or to quote a famous australian film, whether or not you can say "that goes STRAIGHT to the pool room," and have people agree with you. Perhaps we need to distinguish between popular art - authoritative conceptions of how good something is - and personal art interpretations.
|
|
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #39 on: May 26th, 2003, 9:33pm » |
|
http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/Wisniewski/LifeSuppor t.java.html
not just that link (which seemed quite appropriate for the main topic, in a formal fashion), but the whole airport CODeDOC exhibit. not a headline, but still attractive, though.
http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/
// personal commento
some of the work showed on this exhibit doesn't seem like art to me. but let me add that i'm talking about the personal impression that the "final output" has, aesthetically, on me. i do agree with benelek's due distinction "between popular art - authoritative conceptions of how good something is - and personal art interpretations". on the Wisniewski's main code there's an explanation of the project. without it, the actual work was less appealing to me than after reading it. and the explanation is quoted inside the code. therefore, it is part of the code.
i firmly believed that code!= art, as paint!= art. but then, david carson proved me wrong a couple of times, and McLuhan hit me on the head (several times, one for every time he's been quoted!). so now i don't know. matemathically speaking, it can be. how long did it take for Rose Sélavy's readymades to be "accepted" as art? how long for Van Gogh's? (well, some others got it right away...). Futurism and surrealism suffered the same trauma, long rejected as art movements, their work long execrated as art. (please be aware that i'm talking on the behalf of what benelek called "popular art" or the social acceptance of it.)
cinically, i would say that maybe in 10 years we'll find out if code is really (or was, for the future) art.
and then, isn't some of bill viola's opera, just artistical? what about jean tinguely's work? barney's cremaster pentalogy? what to say about john cage's? (isn't cage's music just code, sometimes?)
stressing the point to the maximum (that i can come up with now), what about Rachmaninoff's Concert for Piano and orchestra N. 3 Op. 30, on mp3?
one thing that just pop on my mind (due to cage's work). are we signifying herein just computer code? maybe we have to define, prior to art, code itself.
after all, a partiture is code. isn't it?
===
ps: i found quite interesting the excerpt on code and art on the CODeDOC site ( http://www.whitney.org/artport/commissions/codedoc/ )
===
edit: emoticon technology upset me...
|
| « Last Edit: May 26th, 2003, 9:42pm by pollux » |
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #40 on: May 27th, 2003, 1:24am » |
|
i'll have to make a quick trip to kazaa a lil' later on to check out some of that music  but in the meantime... aren't we all here because we have an affinity with the language, capabilities and style of code? isn't that what we could use to define it/its manifestations as meaningful, regardless of what any future population would think of it/us?
if the populace of the future decides that van gough was no artist, then does that change the fact that to him and his friends, as well as a large group of people in our present time, he is an artist? as with all language, i feel that this word cannot be concreted in immortality. context and appreciation is the key. (of course, being popular is also fun)
|
|
|
|
|
dwhit
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #41 on: May 27th, 2003, 8:53pm » |
|
I strongly disagree. Code CAN be art, as much as anything else can be. It actually depends largely on the intention of the material's use, be it code or not.
|
|
|
|
|
benelek
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #42 on: May 28th, 2003, 2:26pm » |
|
q: what, in any functional sense of society, does art perform? besides people enjoying/appreciating it? what does art, at its core definition, add? how/does it affect the overall functioning of society, or is it just a consumtion like a high-class brand of stereo system, which you might hang on your wall or desktop? can its effects, positive/negative, be studied entirely scientifically?
i've heard all sorts of definitions and purposes, like art being the creation of new ideas for society to follow / explore. there are probably a million other opinions out there. i want to know if you guys/galls know anything new on the topic, and what, specifically, you feel your work can do in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
|
David
Guest
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #43 on: Jul 11th, 2003, 8:00pm » |
|
The construction of the universe, universes, dimentions etc are all built by code, our computer systems may for now not be able to fully allow us to view the code but we are able to view its manifestation, and that is everything that exists everywhere so if a painting is considered art then code is art and if war is a manifestation of code and considered by some hell then code is hell.
One must not mix emotion with rational thinkin, it blurs the truth it blurs THE CODE.
|
|
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: code != art
« Reply #44 on: Jul 14th, 2003, 3:51pm » |
|
and i forgot...
DNA is code.
remember.
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
|
