In the comments to my previous post about whether you have to know code to make art with digital tools, Mark says "The way I read the [BEIGE] interview, the [BEIGE'rs are] interested in programming because they are interested in complete control. Do you have to stretch your own canvas to be a painter? Well, if you're tired of rectangles, perhaps."
My reply:
That's true--but some artists were tired of rectangles and made their own, oddly shaped supports. An analogy I've used is the purist artist who thinks you have to grind your own pigment to paint, either because store bought colors aren't good enough or out of some strict truth-to-materials dictate. I think that applies to John Maeda--his "if you aren't programming you aren't using the computer" rap has a whiff of the purist ascetic about it. The BEIGE'rs are a little more complicated. They're pretty much admitting that the only way they can "own" the medium is to use old computers that they can comfortably hack, so there's a built-in humility or pathos factor there. Also, they're rejecting the store-bought colors not to show their superiority to us mortals,1 but because there's something innately offensive about always having to use Microsoft Color TubesTM (or whatever) to make art. Maeda uses his dual art & programming background as a critical shield, in effect saying to artists who don't like his work, "yes, but you know nothing about the programming" and to engineers, "yes, but you know nothing about art." With the BEIGE'rs, there's no such mystification: by using the old NIntendo games as a starting point, viewers have an accessible point of entry and can intuitively "get" what they're doing.
1. Unless you're Markus Popp.
let's call this a low-rent manual trackback ;-)
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html
Thanks for the link and the reply. We do have a trackback or reference logging feature here but I don't use it, for long and complicated reasons I won't go into now. I'm giving some thought to your comment and hopefully will have something up about it soon.
In the process of developing video systems, I've accidentally introduced a variety of bugs that create interesting and unusual visual effects. Often an understanding how the visual and the implementation are tied together has helped me to quickly understand how to correct the implementation to make the effect go away.
It seems that going the other way -- understanding how to modify the implementation (sw, hw, algorithms) to create effects -- would give someone more "knobs", more control, more flexibility. But of course, knowing what to do with that flexibility is all the difference.
Something I don't know how to guage is how much power is needed. I'm amazed by what artists can do with simple tools. I think I would need MatLab to draw a decent sphere.
Some people don't think drawing has any role to play in advanced art (bill) while others value it far, far, too much (a certain gallery where I used to show). I think the cognitive and perceptual processes associated with drawing have some role to play as art transitions from the vine charcoal to the 1s and 0s phase. I really can't say what or why (not succinctly anyway) other than to say that I'm enjoying continuing to draw in a field where no one can tell whether it's computer-assisted or not.
drawing is one of the primal instincts. i draw all the time. all the time. but i think its the idea part of art that has kept the linear advancement of art alive over the past 35 years. reading marks comment i was reminded of (long ago) spinning down the radio dial and making sure not to stop on the actual radio station. reminded of having fun listening to the in between the stations, to the unintended side effect sounds of that act.
|
In the comments to my previous post about whether you have to know code to make art with digital tools, Mark says "The way I read the [BEIGE] interview, the [BEIGE'rs are] interested in programming because they are interested in complete control. Do you have to stretch your own canvas to be a painter? Well, if you're tired of rectangles, perhaps."
My reply:
That's true--but some artists were tired of rectangles and made their own, oddly shaped supports. An analogy I've used is the purist artist who thinks you have to grind your own pigment to paint, either because store bought colors aren't good enough or out of some strict truth-to-materials dictate. I think that applies to John Maeda--his "if you aren't programming you aren't using the computer" rap has a whiff of the purist ascetic about it. The BEIGE'rs are a little more complicated. They're pretty much admitting that the only way they can "own" the medium is to use old computers that they can comfortably hack, so there's a built-in humility or pathos factor there. Also, they're rejecting the store-bought colors not to show their superiority to us mortals,1 but because there's something innately offensive about always having to use Microsoft Color TubesTM (or whatever) to make art. Maeda uses his dual art & programming background as a critical shield, in effect saying to artists who don't like his work, "yes, but you know nothing about the programming" and to engineers, "yes, but you know nothing about art." With the BEIGE'rs, there's no such mystification: by using the old NIntendo games as a starting point, viewers have an accessible point of entry and can intuitively "get" what they're doing.
1. Unless you're Markus Popp.
- tom moody 10-13-2004 7:33 am
let's call this a low-rent manual trackback ;-)
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html
- twhid 10-14-2004 1:16 am
Thanks for the link and the reply. We do have a trackback or reference logging feature here but I don't use it, for long and complicated reasons I won't go into now. I'm giving some thought to your comment and hopefully will have something up about it soon.
- tom moody 10-14-2004 1:48 am
In the process of developing video systems, I've accidentally introduced a variety of bugs that create interesting and unusual visual effects. Often an understanding how the visual and the implementation are tied together has helped me to quickly understand how to correct the implementation to make the effect go away.
It seems that going the other way -- understanding how to modify the implementation (sw, hw, algorithms) to create effects -- would give someone more "knobs", more control, more flexibility. But of course, knowing what to do with that flexibility is all the difference.
Something I don't know how to guage is how much power is needed. I'm amazed by what artists can do with simple tools. I think I would need MatLab to draw a decent sphere.
- mark 10-14-2004 11:01 am
Some people don't think drawing has any role to play in advanced art (bill) while others value it far, far, too much (a certain gallery where I used to show). I think the cognitive and perceptual processes associated with drawing have some role to play as art transitions from the vine charcoal to the 1s and 0s phase. I really can't say what or why (not succinctly anyway) other than to say that I'm enjoying continuing to draw in a field where no one can tell whether it's computer-assisted or not.
- tom moody 10-14-2004 11:19 pm
drawing is one of the primal instincts. i draw all the time. all the time. but i think its the idea part of art that has kept the linear advancement of art alive over the past 35 years. reading marks comment i was reminded of (long ago) spinning down the radio dial and making sure not to stop on the actual radio station. reminded of having fun listening to the in between the stations, to the unintended side effect sounds of that act.
- bill 10-14-2004 11:45 pm