I'm not sure where to put this or even whether it's welcome here at all, but I'll try it and see...

"This space intends to be a forum for sharing work and generating discussion about the pragmatic and esoteric aspects of electronic art / computational design."

That suggests it's ok. I stuck it in this folder as it seems busiest, I'm sure it'll get moved if I missed somewhere more appropriate.

I just want to collect some thoughts/questions I've been having about digital art/art in general. This won't be all that coherent or watertight because I'm just thinking aloud - I'm not trying to make a case, I'm just interested in what people here (as authors of digital art) think.

First off, art in general but digital art in particular seem to be firmly entrenched in the practise of representation (as opposed to presentation). That is to say most of the digital art I see is predominantly either mimetic or diagrammatic (or both) as opposed to either constructive (of ideas, arguments, purposes) or political (serving some function in society of which only art is capable).

In the first case I mean things which, for example, mimic natural processes – those which produce trees or flocks or patterns and so on. On one hand I see this as the continued drive to express/represent Li (“Li is the asymmetrical, nonrepetitive, and unregimented order which we find in the patterns of moving water, the form of trees and clouds, of frost crystals on the window, or the scattering of pebbles on beach sand.” Sorry, can't find a better definition right now.). But that is only really valid the first time it is modeled, when it reveals something new, or when it is done particularly artfully.

Looking deeper, I think part of the attraction with this sort of work is the very fact that it is produced computationally. Falling leaves or smoke or fluids or growing plants are amazing in themselves, but we are used to them. Seeing a computer produce a simulacrum of falling leaves is amazing precisely because we are aware that it is artificial (as in constructed not as in false). And this seems to be something which fails to address the nature of the medium and just relies on its newness, which won't last forever.

It could be argued that the construction of attractive aesthetics is an end in itself. I wouldn't directly disagree with that but I would put that aim outside of the scope of what art should be about, if it is the primary purpose of the work.

I recognise that aesthetics, or more broadly that part of the artistic language which communicates in analogue codes serves a purpose which has been diminished under modernism and its offspring. It provides a route for that communication which cannot be quantified or explained (in another language), the part which allows art to go beyond (not making it better, just different) those media rooted in digital codes. It provides a means for a richness of communication (with an accompanying lack of semantic exactitude) – but it is exactly that – a means for communication – not an end in itself. I think modernism's devaluation of anything which can't be rationalised in modernism's own (faulty) terms has forced us into this position where this part of artistic language is seen as pointless/puposeless (exemplified in modernism's purge of 'decoration'). Yet we know in our hearts that this part of the language does have a role, so we continue to use it, but we disconnect it from its purpose (the communication of ideas) and make it an end in itself. And then we are forced attempt to 'explain' our work in the digital codes of writing etc., but that's another problem.

So, those (digital) artworks which mimic nature seem to me to fall into that trap. Yes, they are beautiful and interesting, they required skill and talent and craftswo/manship to create. But I'm not sure what they're saying or doing. They seem to be decoration detached from any purpose. I like looking at them – they are often fascinating, but they don't seem to be progressing anything. The exact same approach seems to be re-used again and again. Mimicking one thing after another without ever saying why or ... going further.

Then there's diagramming (I realise there's an overlap between diagramming and modeling) in one form or another.

Common practise seems to be to take an existing data set, which usually exists within the structure of a language, and then abstract it from that language and 'represent' it. The implication is that this reveals something about the nature of the data set, or the nature of that which the data itself represents. This is problematic to me on two counts.

Firstly, as I said, that dataset exists within a language. Taking genome data as an example, to one who does not know the language it is just a string of letters. To one who does, those letters represent molecules or genes or... whatever their learning/specialisation/preference prescribes. The string of letters become meaningful. The act of diagramming often detaches the data from that language structure such that the relationship among the constituent parts becomes wholly relative. i.e. We can distinguish between red and green but neither red nor green are tied to any absolute meaning. So problem one is abstracting the data from its original context or meaning.

Nice.

Reading all of it, but not understanding a lot of it, yet.

As an aside, your writing seems to reflect very much on my own thought processes, so I think we have great common ground to begin. However to fully have myself participate in this conversation I really should re-read this post under greater.. shall we say... sobriety.

For the moment, I shall take a stab at a very narrow view: my view, on the way I personally approach digital art, processing, the works.

Yes, I have been "guilty" of making falling leaves, bouncing balls, vehicles, the like. When I do, I do so under the guise of "practice". And certainly for every craft there is a phase in which one doesn't really create anything of "creative" works, just ones that have been done, over and over, by everyone, even the masters.

I believe that , like so much still life paintings, we are all bound to create the same thing --in practice--. Yet, the moment we label our next l-systems simulation (alone, withing nothing added or contributed) as anything under the umbrella of "art", then we have somehow become computer programmers posing as artists or designers.

I'm not quite sure I can fully vouch for the above statement, but I'll stand for it for the time being, for the sake of conversation.

Next, you mention how the underlying purpose of doing these digital works is sometimes seemingly an end unto itself. Am I correct in assessing your statement?

If so, I heartily agree with you there. Yet, like a writer who pushes the extents of what books can do and movies cannot (the range is getting thinner and thinner), we artists and designers capitalize and maximize the advantages our medium provides us. Unfortunately the medium is so young that I feel like we have barely began to scratch the surface! We certainly are not digging fast enough, either...

Although, this line of conversation was heavily discussed in, under Toxi's post and thread a few weeks back.

I'll stop temporarily, to see how other people interpret this. I appreciate this dialogue, though, so thank you for bringing this up. It's well written, but I just need time to digest (metaphorically, and literally).

I think I understand what you mean about mimetic artwork. Lately all of the ideas I've tried to program out or have been thinking about have been almost totally mimetic, with maybe some stylization. Like making a cartoon version of the real world. That's really fascinating to me, to just create something and sit back and watch it go. That's almost the total motivation, and I'm not sure why. Even as I'm writing this, I'm thinking of something.

But what is the artistic value of just something that is funny to look at that maybe mimics the real world in a simplified way. Maybe it's just entertainment? Like having a pet, but more predictable. I guess it says something about the process it mimics, and if it's executed well enough and is original enough I think it could be called art.

But I'm not trying to change the world or make some huge impact or say something great. If an llustrator shows you a fantastical landscape or setting, you imagine the rest and create a little story. Digital art can be like that, but also can be functional, which is cool.

I would say that what is missing is narrative, or some kind of story. But that would just be pushing toward conventional entertainment like video games or music videos. If games are becoming more like movies, what is a more natural form for digital art to take?

I'll reply to these posts one by one in separate posts before reading the next, otherwise I'm gonna get all mixed up. Thank you for the replies – I really appreciate the help.

So, mflux:

" Yes, I have been "guilty" of making falling leaves, bouncing balls, vehicles, the like. When I do, I do so under the guise of "practice"."

and

"I believe that , like so much still life paintings, we are all bound to create the same thing --in practice[...]"

(sorry I can't make quotes more visible, I can't figure out how to use html here)

I think you're absolutely right. Of course there's a need to practise. The problem comes when exhibiting what is in reality practise (or a 'sketch') as if it's an end point. I don't mean to demean sketching though (and I love that projects in Processing are called sketches - I think it sets absolutely the right tone), it's absolutely necessary. It's where ideas as well as techniques develop. As someone on this board said (I've forgotten who, sorry) in reference to some neural net stuff they were doing, it's very much about playing about. I think that 'playing about' is absolutely essential. But, particularly in a medium seen to be so new, it's tempting to use the impact/novelty value to carry the work further than is really warranted.

What you said about still life painting is interesting. To me those still life works/painters who really stand out are those which go beyond just representation. The best of the post renaissance still life painters were those operating in that language I talked about - where you feel what they're getting at - understand it absolutely in its own terms without any need or desire (or ability) to translate what it is you understand into the language of words. Dialogues about space and spatial relationships, composition, symbolism (and thus language), volume, representation itself and so on. Simply being a perfect copy of reality is not 'enough' - a painting like that would look very weak next to a really good still life. The technical skill and the act of representation are the vehicles for the presentation of ideas, not ends in themselves.

That's not to say there weren't painters who used the gimmicks of 'new media'. There were those who used the impact of realistic representation as an end, relying on things like new techniques such as the seven layer technique, relied on new pigments or technologies such as linear perspective and so on. They were all overused after their discovery. It's part of our nature and important in finding the boundaries, seeing how far things can be pushed etc. - how flexible the new language is.

The trouble is, and perspective is a good example, that these tricks become so embedded in our thinking that we take them for granted to such an extent that we start to see the world through them. Can't imagine there was ever or could ever be another way. That's why I think a particular rigour is necessary with digital art. It's potential lies in its ability to transcend previous limitations and compromises. So we have to be very careful not to define it by reference to those very limitations and thus never see that it can overcome them.

Right, last thing before I hit the word limit again (I'm so sorry I can't express myself more concisely in writing)...

Oops. I did it again.

Scloopy:

First, I think there's a distinction (not a hierarchy, just a  distinction) between high/fine art and applied arts. I realise that these traditional definitions don't fit so comfortably anymore but I don't buy the postmodern line that there's no distinction/value in distinction.

To me, being overly simplistic, fine art is the place to advance ideas, make conceptual progress and create/propose new structures, new modes of thought, etc.. Applied art is the place to take those ideas and do something with them within the current structure – to satisfy an existing need or task.

I realise that as a definition that has big holes in it, but broadly speaking, it's how I think of things. I don't see either as better or more important. Both are absolutely necessary – they need each other and they feed each other.

Having said that, I'd say.

“Maybe it's just entertainment? Like having a pet, but more predictable. I guess it says something about the process it mimics”

“I would say that what is missing is narrative, or some kind of story. But that would just be pushing toward conventional entertainment like video games or music videos. If games are becoming more like movies, what is a more natural form for digital art to take? ”

To me, the fact that you're thinking along those lines pushes it into the art-place. So long as those thoughts are pursued and developed. I'd encourage you to think about those things – from the sounds of it, your work deserves it. It might not be your aim to change the world but... why exclude the possibility? You're ahead of me, I'm not even making anything.

Toastie:

I read the discussion involving Toxi, which touched on this stuff.

I'm trying to keep it short now so sorry if I sound abrupt.

I agree that this phase of experimentation is a necessary part of defining the terms of he media (both collectively and for each individual). But that's only half of what is necessary. The other half is an investigation of the context – a real hard look at the assumptions.

As for code, I don't think it's necessary to be that good at it. You need to know what *can* be done in order to think of doing, it, sometimes, yeah. But for the most part I think the ideas come first and one learns how to make them happen in code as required. A general understanding of 'good code' is an advantage. But so long as the code does the job, I'm not too concerned. If a project really requires either absolute efficiency in code design or a deeper knowledge than the artist can hope to reasonably achieve then it's time for collaboration (something I see as currently lacking – there are groups of people with particular expertise and they're not utilising each other).

Your last couple of paragraphs – my argument against that would be that that is really no different from painting, drawing, sculpting or whatever. If you separate the notions of 'artist' and 'painter' then you have to have time to both learn art (learn to see as you sort of put it) and learn to paint. These two skills are not directly linked, that assumption is just a product of one of those problematic hangups I was talking about.

I would say that the problem is in fact that the environment (speaking very broadly) doesn't require that rigour, not that it is impossible to apply.

I was recently reading a bit of Bridget Riley, where she refers to modernism as being 'only a view that we've inherited'

TomC is right about the members of this community not all being in the business of making art. I program my own software as part of my art practice, and don't maintain a web-site to exhibit it; it's not the correct context for my work and I'm not a software artist, though it's absolutely central to what I do.

Important to remember that 90% of whatever it calls itself is shite, art or otherwise (especially if I had a hand in it!), and by the way, I'm guilty of allowing myself to be seduced by the medium, in fact I still make use of the techniques I first started using as a programmer 20 years ago (very simple concepts), and I'm still seduced by painting as a medium (central to my getting out of bed each morning), yet I don't paint.

It is refreshing to have this sort of post, but processing is clear about what it provides. It gets on with its job and lets the interpretive communities get on with theirs. I use it in the true spirit of appropriation and am grateful to Ben and Casey for the development.

Well...my hats in the ring, and I only apologise for not having added much to this debate.

** additional **

Toastie replied as I was replying:

Good concept is enough, especially if you're a conceptualist. Look at Duchamp's urinal and how it transformed everything.

Mechanics of paint are relatively simple, and a large part of it comes down to knowing what to paint. That seems to be the biggest problem any artist faces: What and How. Bad painting probably results from being too damn clear about either of these 2.

Confusion is an asbolute necessity, and doing things in a way that you've never done them before in order to be surprised a good way of getting confused. Practicing the things we have learned makes us merley competent, and it shouldn't be confused with creativity, which is some other than the mechanics of a medium.

I think that Duchamp is not really a good example in this case. His work aimed to redefine the idea of art, making mockery of the whole idea of artistic concept. If anything, it  goes against your argument.