 |
Author |
Topic: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theory') (Read 1048 times) |
|
arielm
|
was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theory')
« on: Dec 12th, 2003, 2:02am » |
|
a few hours ago, someone (don't remember who, sorry) started an interesting thread questionning the relation between drawing and interactivity... but it's not here anymore!
any chance to bring this back?
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
Koenie
  
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #1 on: Dec 12th, 2003, 4:08pm » |
|
hmmm, I'm sure I've read it too, so it wasn't a dream. Pretty weird its gone now...
Koenie
|
http://koeniedesign.com
|
|
|
fry
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #2 on: Dec 12th, 2003, 4:46pm » |
|
hmm.. we don't delete threads, though we sometimes move them (did it wind up in pedagogy, for instance?) or when you did your search did you set the day limit higher than 7?
i'd be concerned if it were deleted, since that would mean we're losing files somehow..
|
|
|
|
|
REAS
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #3 on: Dec 12th, 2003, 6:16pm » |
|
i also did not move or delete that thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Ethan
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #4 on: Dec 12th, 2003, 7:31pm » |
|
oh.. heh, sorry that was me.
I suddenly got that feeling like when you spill your guts and everyone just kind of whistles and walks on by. I didn't give it long enough I guess...
But I'd still like to discuss it... so here goes...
_____________________________________________
Background: I'm a painter who has some programming skills. I'm just trying to get a grip conceptually on my experiments with p5 and how it relates to "art"
1- Interactive or not. I have a friend who argues that interactive art isn't much different than traditional painting. In both cases the artist sets up the parameters, and the viewer explores within those parameters. Interacting with a program may be more fun, but conceptually it isn't that much different. He argues that real interactivity would mean that the artist "gives up control" ... that the artist and the viewer are both able to change the parameters..... I came to agree with this argument, and stopped making interactive p5 peices to rid myself of the pretense. Now I'm not sure though. Ignoring interactivity starts to feel like painting with all the colors except one.
2- Intuition. I was just wondering how intuition fits into your work. In painting I start with a rough idea, and then go by what 'feels' right. "Process" for a painter is the intuitive cycles of "mark-making." ... I guess "process" for a programmer is loop() ... so where does intuition fit in? Or would you say it's not required for "art."
|
|
|
|
|
swannodette
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #5 on: Dec 12th, 2003, 9:13pm » |
|
A few thoughts from someone who studied film:
1. Part of me loves the possibilities of interactivity but then part me also argues that the inclusion of interactivity does not really change anyone's position to the artwork. I find that static artworks in general are just as "interactive" as dynamic ones. Perhaps interactive work should be understood as a visual interpretation of aleatory techniques in music- allowing the performer to alter the music so it's never the same, though any performance will contain a semblance of the previous and the next, and in this way locates the creator. Interactive or not, what matters most to me in art that I enjoy is rigor, playfulness, and to paraphrase T.W. Adorno, that feeling that gravity is being defied.
2. I think intuition is pretty much integral to all arts no matter what field your refering whether it be fine arts, computer science, mathematics, law, linguistics, philosophy, literature, whatever. When I work on an idea I usually only have a rough sketch in my mind, but I'm open as I move along to other possibilities, new ideas, and especially flat-out mistakes. I play guitar and usually when I construct a melody wrong notes will be hit and it colors the idea in a way I hadn't considered. I think this is also the real point of all study- opening yourself up to the unexpected. Process for me involves considering both the code and the manipulation of the conceptual material.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2003, 9:14pm by swannodette » |
|
|
|
|
Ethan
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #6 on: Dec 13th, 2003, 12:30am » |
|
1. Exactly, a good "static" work is supposed to be interactive.
"... allowing the performer to alter the music so it's never the same ... " That's interesting, and cool. Yeah I guess interactivity can have any number of functions that aren't even really related to whether or not the piece has "evolved" past traditional "static" art.
2. I can sort of see what you're saying. Your guitar analogy is just the same as painting. But in code, you can't really hit a "wrong note" ... usually it will just break. I have gotten unexpected results by changing variables, or setting up a calculation wrong. And that is cool. But is it intuition? Is intuition different from "being open to the unexpected"? Interesting question.
|
|
|
|
|
swannodette
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #7 on: Dec 13th, 2003, 9:23pm » |
|
I agree, perhaps allowing for error is only a particular form of intution, how about this:
intuition is understanding what will work in a given situation- one that is _not_ based on logic and only loosely grounded in knowledge- though intution's result becomes knowledge. so intuition is a sense of what is possible in the conceptual space that a creative programming environment provides. and looking at the exhibition space here, a new intuitive human language is clearly developing 
|
|
|
|
|
heidi
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #8 on: Dec 14th, 2003, 12:52am » |
|
hey ethan,
[sympathize with that gut-spilling whistling scenario ) - very glad you brought it back!)
on Dec 12th, 2003, 7:31pm, Ethan wrote:
Interacting with a program may be more fun, but conceptually it isn't that much different. He argues that real interactivity would mean that the artist "gives up control" ... that the artist and the viewer are both able to change the parameters..... I came to agree with this argument, and stopped making interactive p5 peices to rid myself of the pretense.
|
|
from this... it seems that you saw the 'artist giving up control' as something that somehow negates the artwork itself care to elaborate on that one
i think it's pretty clear that interactive art is moving more and more towards the artist stepping out of the picture, and opening up more room for his participators to 'co-create'...
however, the very choosing and setting of parameters still delineates a certain playground. the fact that they can be changed by viewers (now co-creators) does not obliterate the artistic statement... rather, it simply allows the development of the statement into something far more like a conversation.
i.e., this kind of interactivity is not bad.
and you're right... working without it is certainly painting without the most important color - at least to the digital palette.
re. intuition... i can tell you of a project done by my friend and his girlfriend. she's a professional and extremely good programmer; she's programmed the entire system.
he, however, constructs the functions that play with color-input, and create forms of output. his gf, the programmer, says she'd never be able to invent such functions herself.
i watched and listened to him describe it as he programmed; and it's obviously a very intuitive process. it expresses itself in numbers and mathematical operations, but the process itself is exactly like painting.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2003, 1:26am by heidi » |
|
|
|
|
heidi
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #9 on: Dec 14th, 2003, 1:04am » |
|
on Dec 12th, 2003, 9:13pm, swannodette wrote:
1. Part of me loves the possibilities of interactivity but then part me also argues that the inclusion of interactivity does not really change anyone's position to the artwork. I find that static artworks in general are just as "interactive" as dynamic ones. |
|
finally clarified something interesting in this context that has been niggling at my brain.
art has indeed always been interactive. perhaps that's part of the essential definition of art in that it generates an experience
there seems to be a very interesting pattern here in that the more abstract and digital the art-form, the more it demands concrete movement and action on the part of the audience.
and vice versa... the more concrete art forms - drawing, music, etc... in fact generate more mental forms of experience.
[and here - i need to interject and correct myself. that's not altogether true. and that perhaps the qualification here is that when we were able to capture our senses within particular media - i.e., record sound, photograph sight, paint color, turn movement into standardized technique...
the more each sense was separated from others, the more abstract the experience.
perhaps the viscerality of the experience can also be related to the number of senses involved...
okay. this seems to be another thread of thought... i'll cut it off here.]
back to the main point:
i'm assuming it would be easy to agree that more 'traditional' forms of art do generate a 'more' passive type of experience. what does that mean - it is easier for the viewer to sit back and just react... or even just absorb without reacting.
this is because the art is generally experienced mentally.
interactive art, in a curious and interesting way, cause the viewer to actually inter*act*.
they cause a great deal more action on part of the participator, whether it's clicking a mouse or jumping up and down in front of a projector.
even the more mentally-oriented works, such as interactive narrative, demand the participator to make choices, decisions or interpretations.
then back to the form of passive experience... it is harder to cultivate an active (as compared to reactive) form of experience opposite music or paintings. (this is why, for example, music appreciation needs to be 'taught').
i think that perhaps this characteristic has prompted the development of far more reproductive art rather than simulative art in the traditional artforms.
and along the same continuum... as we progress to more active art, it is very easy to become active, but people don't yet understand how to experience it.
however, through physical movement, decision-making, problem-solving, through *acting*, a change of experience occurs.
to me - that sounds a lot like intuition as well.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2003, 1:37am by heidi » |
|
|
|
|
arielm
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #10 on: Dec 14th, 2003, 1:20am » |
|
[edit: this post was written while heidi was working on her posts, so it's not aware of them... never mind, it happens to us all the time ]
on Dec 12th, 2003, 7:31pm, Ethan wrote:| I guess "process" for a programmer is loop()... so where does intuition fit in Or would you say it's not required for "art." |
|
i think programming is bigger than what it looks at a first sight, e.g:
on Dec 13th, 2003, 9:23pm, swannodette wrote:| ...the conceptual space that a creative programming environment provides. and looking at the exhibition space here, a new intuitive human language is clearly developing |
|
some forms of arts are exhibited ("exposition" en francais) in museums, while some programmable environments "expose" their APIs.
now what if a piece of "software art" is exhibited both as an interactive space for a "classical kind" of audience, and as an open-source programmable space for a "new kind" of code-aware audience (btw, the term "audience" is probably not fitting anymore)
in addition of bringing openness (i.e the summum of interactivity), having access to the source-code of a piece of software is also revealing the creation process (without the need of a "making of"...)
note: it's possible that there is nothing new in all this (i.e. these kind of things were valid before programming existed),
any thoughts from people more versed in art-theory than me (actually, i'm not versed at all in art-theory...)
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 14th, 2003, 1:25am by arielm » |
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
Ethan
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #11 on: Dec 15th, 2003, 4:48pm » |
|
Very glad to read all your replies.
intuition is understanding what will work in a given situation- one that is _not_ based on logic and only loosely grounded in knowledge
I like this definition of intuition.
it seems that you saw the 'artist giving up control' as something that somehow negates the artwork itself? care to elaborate on that one?
No I wouldn't say it negates it. It's just not what I'm doing at the moment. I wouldn't know how to do it at this stage.
Heidi your posts are serious food for thought. I haven't yet digested it. 
This whole thread is spawning new ideas, thanks all.
|
|
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #12 on: Dec 17th, 2003, 6:05am » |
|
heidi, yes, you did throw some very good food for the brain, and mine has been chewing on some of them for a long time... i'll try to digest them here, he!
a very high-pitched key to my ear: interactivity. i still consider _fundamental_ to define it, though has been quite demanding along the times. therefore i used a trick for a while, defining it by defining what's not interactive. i came along a word so many times, i made it part of the discourse: reactive.
someone (that i don't recall) mentioned me that one very good prototype for a real interactive model was... a conversation. i'll keep that pseudo-definition of interactive for a while.
this thread. it is very interactive. my response right now depends higly on heidi's input. it is actually reformed (or more properly, informed) by all the thoughts that have been exposed herein. my opinions, perhaps very well structured, or just a bunch of ideas, mix and melt with other people's opinions to decantate on what i am writing now. and perhaps my thoughts will become a stepping stone for the next threaders to opinate on the subject. yet the thread is partly all the opinions, yet the perception we get from reading them in this exact order, in a given space and time. call that the opera.
websites, cd-roms, almost all software, flash, interactive narrative in almost it's integrity, are not interactive. they're reactive, at the most. art in it's classical realms, discourses, are not interactive as well.
videogames (most of them), boxing, conversations, forums, photoshop tennis, are (to some extent) interactive.
then you may think that for interaction to happen, a community or at least a bunch of people has to coexist and inter-act on the same expressive environment. but it is not true. the design process is higly interactive. swannodette's example of musical composition gives an example. the work nurtures next steps on the design road, and the same ideas that came from it, when applied, nurtures the work.
i see here some analogy, but i cannot put my finger on it. the best i can come with is the word nurture or even feeding. there's something related to the interaction actually changing (re-forming) it's interlocutors in any way. (as in thoughts, shape, output, color...)
so there's a degree of reaction on the usage of API's, software or digital art. and there's a (possible) high level of interaction, given a degree of internal reasoning or discussion generated from the piece, work or painting (here it aggregates to the art itself in it's many expressions).
as an architect (and to exemplify an interaction event that doesn't depend on short lapses) the city is a huge interactive model. what's built dialogues with what's about to be built, and so on, for times to come.
enough with examples. what i've come to terms with as a proto definition for interactive, is a comparison: if it looks like a conversation, it is interactive.
there's an old 'game', interactive game among artist, the referential work. lately i saw an exhibition that spanned almost ten years of conversational, referential work between three artists here in venezuela. each one, every now and then, referenced an art work from another, whic, at it's time, was referenced by another one later on. le cadavre (artistiquement) exquisite.
could a wonderfully excecuted chess game be an interactive piece of art?
on the other hand, computer art excels in building methods and models for interaction to happen, but mostly outside the same artwork, by letting the user to become the artist, therefore empowering him to be part of the higly-interactive-in-a-personal-level interactive model of art.
might setting the rules for others to artistically interact be interactive art in itself?
one of the most interesting (at least to me) artistical currents was (is) deconstructivism, exactly because it's high level of reaction to a reaction. the deconstructivists, well, analise a piece of work to it's root, it's imprompt, what's essential to it, and then from that, build a new opera that maintains the essence, the soul of the prior one, but in a completely different aesthetical realm.
as for computer art, i remember some works from yugop that played with an already used canvas, that hold traces of prior work from other users, which were related to time by it's intensity, giving the new artist the chance to acknowledge (or not) the used canvas to inform the personal outcome by letting you add/modify/enhance/divert/modify/ignore what was already done thereunto.
but i'm not making a point here (not just because i am not able!). a blank canvas can give you as much input (or lack of it) as a 'wet' one.
my thoughts. to be continued... (by you?)
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
pollux
|
Re: was it just a dream? (a thread named 'art theo
« Reply #13 on: Dec 17th, 2003, 6:12am » |
|
on Dec 14th, 2003, 1:20am, arielm wrote:| (...) now what if a piece of "software art" is exhibited both as an interactive space (...) and as an open-source programmable space (...) |
|
what if the interaction with the software 'canvas' could, in any way, 'alter' the code itself, making it not just a new canvas for the next, but a very new software piece
(A.I. and interactive art. might that be a confluence point...)
|
pollux | www.frwrd.net
|
|
|
|
