Andre SC
Since 2006
Works in Johannesburg South Africa

BIO
Andr
Discussions (16) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?


Geert

Couldn't agree more. Have you heard of 'Holarchy'?-

" Each Holon could be regarded as either a whole or as a part depending on
how one looks at it.":http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/holarchies.html
"A holarchy, in the terminology of Arthur Koestler, is a hierarchy of
holons - where a holon is simply a part of a hierarchy which itself is a
complex system. The term was coined in Koestler's 1967 book The Ghost in the
Machine.

The "nested" nature of holons, where one holon can be considered as part of
another, is similar to the term Panarchy as used by Adaptive Management
theorists Lance Gunderson and C.S. Holling.

The universe as a whole is an example of a holarchy, or holarchical system,
and every other holarchy we are aware of is a part of this larger
holarchy.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy

Andre SC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geert Dekkers" <geert@nznl.com>
To: "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>
Cc: "Rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

> Perhaps "system" seems too closed, but I don't think it is too big. The
> art system is a subset of the cultural system, there are also subsets of
> the art system, and so on. But we need a word that denotes the
> inter-relatedness of -- well, the nodes. I like the word "node" in this
> context, but it can't be an XML sort of "child node" because an XML
> document has a top-down hierarchal structure. There is of course the
> internet node -- the idea of a packet on its way through the internet;
> any one node may fail, the packet will then choose an alternative route.
>
> This may seem like mincing words but I think it is actually very
> important to add to the metaphor using computer/internet related terms.
> As our understanding of and dependence on the digital realm grows we
> should rethink old systems (or institutions :)) in these new words.
>
>
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>
>
> On 22/04/2006, at 5:50 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Maybe I didn't word that correctly. OK, the art work doesn't 'define'
>> the 'institution'. I'll have to find a better way to word it. Maybe
>> something along the lines of the nature of the work determining the
>> 'institution'. I see nothing wrong with using the term 'institution' as
>> long as we agree that it's not a physical thing. 'System' feels too big
>> to me. I don't think we can say that 'system' = 'non-physical
>> institution'.
>>
>> Pall
>>
>> On 22.4.2006, at 04:59, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21/04/2006, at 8:29 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Geert,
>>>> I'm pretty sure that the 'institutional' setting has been sufficiently
>>>> challenged and those bonds broken in many ways. If the 'institution'
>>>> is always there, then it's not necessarily a physical thing and it's
>>>> defined by the work itself. So in a way, we could say that taking a
>>>> piece of Net-Art and making it only viewable in a gallery or museum
>>>> defies the institutional properties of that work. The Internet _is_
>>>> the institution.
>>>
>>> First of all I'd like to correct myself in the use of the word
>>> "institution". The word might indeed connotate more of a physical thing
>>> than I mean it to be. Perhaps I should go looking for another metaphor.
>>> I should probably just use "system" -- very vague, but a least no
>>> obvious bricks-and-mortar links. So then I could reread your "If the
>>> 'institution' is always there, then it's not necessarily a physical
>>> thing and it's defined by the work itself" as "If the 'system' is
>>> always there, then it's not necessarily a physical thing and it's
>>> defined by the work itself" -- then this "defined" is obviously untrue,
>>> as the child nodes of the art system are not only the art works, but
>>> also art galleries, gallery owners, art lovers art haters buyers and so
>>> on. A definition of "system" always includes reciprocracy. The system
>>> is grows by and spawns child nodes.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I'd say that there is an instrinsic linkage between the
>>> production of abstract art and the knowledge and use of the art system
>>> as system, by artists, and by other "child nodes" of the art system.
>>> Artists operating in the 50s and 60s like Vito Acconci, and others,
>>> clashed with the system as it stood at that moment, but of course knew
>>> the system well. They knew its soft spots. They used it as an artistic
>>> medium, as it should be. Also Joseph Beuys, whose greatest
>>> accomplishment is the expansion of the art work into the social system.
>>> Then on to the 80s, where people like Alan Charlton their "dummy nodes"
>>> in the sytem and let them revolve. The "names" are artists names, but
>>> they could not function within the system without the active
>>> participation of the other nodes of the sytem.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I also want to get back to the issue of abstraction because
>>>> there's something I've been thinking about lately that I didn't
>>>> mention in previous posts. That is that if a digital piece is based on
>>>> programming that essentially produces the artwork itself, I feel that,
>>>> regardless of the subject matter shown, the piece becomes inherently
>>>> abstract because the 'entity' producing it isn't conscious of its
>>>> content. And I feel that this relates in a way to Jackson Pollock's
>>>> method of handing some control over to the medium itself, allowing the
>>>> properties of paint to control certain aspects of the 'image' to
>>>> heighten the sense of abstraction. Paint isn't capable of conscious
>>>> representation but humans have to truly fight to escape it (that is,
>>>> assuming that they even can - look at some of the work of Andre Masson
>>>> and Kandinsky). In the same way, computers aren't capable of
>>>> conscious representation so even if the image they produce looks like
>>>> a tree, it's still abstract because a computer can't consciously know
>>>> what a tree is.
>>>>
>>>> I did a little experiment recently where I decided to teach my
>>>> computer, in its own terms, how to draw a circle. So instead of simply
>>>> using something like 'g.drawEllipse(10, 10, 100, 100);', I wrote out
>>>> an algorithm to make it plot each point of a circle. Then I turned it
>>>> into an animated applet and let it run. As I sat and watched the
>>>> computer trace this circle over and over again, I asked myself, "OK,
>>>> does my computer now know what a circle is?" Well, it must because I'm
>>>> watching it draw it. I could've made the algorithm into a function
>>>> called draw_a_circle and then I could just tell the computer to
>>>> draw_a_circle and it would. But is the computer conscious of what a
>>>> circle is? If I show a child how to draw a circle, chances are that if
>>>> I then show that child an image of a circle, the child will recognize
>>>> it. So, after teaching my computer to draw a circle, will I be able to
>>>> present the computer with an image of a circle and have it recognize
>>>> it? No. Of course not. I know, this isn't ground-breaking stuff. When
>>>> presented, it's blatantly obvious. But from an artistic standpoint
>>>> it's definitely something to think about.
>>>>
>>>> Pall
>>>>
>>>> On 21.4.2006, at 03:58, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20-apr-2006, at 22:45, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Geert,
>>>>>> Good point. I hadn't really considered that. When considering
>>>>>> Net-Art as a mass-media type phenomenon, I guess what concerns me as
>>>>>> far as the location of the experience goes, is the fact that people
>>>>>> not generally interested enough in art to go out and seek it in a
>>>>>> gallery or museum or even those who feel intimidated by formal art
>>>>>> settings (the "I don't know how to talk about art. I'll just feel
>>>>>> out of place." types) can experience the art in solitude without it
>>>>>> being a compromise such as looking at pictures of paintings or
>>>>>> sculptures in a magazine. They get the real thing. And the way
>>>>>> things are now, that doesn't necessarily have to be at home, it can
>>>>>> be at a coffee-shop, the library, school, even a park.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as far as walking around and examining work in three dimensions,
>>>>>> I'm not sure that I would call that unique to screen-based art as
>>>>>> painting exhibitions usually don't invite you to examine the
>>>>>> paintings from behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. But what I mean is that in the case of screen-based work, like
>>>>> digital work, like video work, the space of the work is removed from
>>>>> the physical space where the box (computer, video set, projection
>>>>> system) is presented. Which means that there is a conflict between
>>>>> the art work universe (what goes on inside the box) and the design
>>>>> universe (the outside of the box). More often than not, this conflict
>>>>> stays unresolved. Of course, in painting (or any other form where
>>>>> the image carrier is fixed to the image) this conflict is present.
>>>>> But the conflict doesn't present itself as strongly as in
>>>>> screen-based art, because of the simple possibility of switching of
>>>>> the set (you then end up with just another tv)
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of the appreciation of art comes with setting the context. As in
>>>>> other art forms -- for example: going to the pictures (to a movie
>>>>> theatre) sets te context for the experience of a movie. Watching the
>>>>> same on the telly is just not the same -- as everyone knows. To pin
>>>>> down a traditional form of art appreciation -- lets say that would be
>>>>> in a gallery, museum, or someones home, you'd really also have to
>>>>> speak of the context of the art object, to some extent, the context
>>>>> would be personal, other context would be collective, and yes, I can
>>>>> imagine context that would be very unique to the person doing the
>>>>> appreciating, so much so, that it would not be able to be
>>>>> articulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> So -- getting "the real thing" might just be somewhat different than
>>>>> you think it is, Pall. Art needs its institutions -- but art needs to
>>>>> break its bonds now and again, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geert
>>>>> http://nznl.com
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20.4.2006, at 16:09, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2006, at 9:24 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been doing some research on related stuff recently and it's
>>>>>>>> beginning to lead into a kind of strange direction. What I'm going
>>>>>>>> to say is not about digital art in general but about Net-Art in
>>>>>>>> general. For a long time I've been touting the merits of the
>>>>>>>> abstract and do in fact feel that it's one of *the* most important
>>>>>>>> moves in recent art. So important that to simply abandon it as old
>>>>>>>> fashioned would be a shame. It's definitely important stuff. But
>>>>>>>> as far as Net-Art is concerned, it's hard to ignore the
>>>>>>>> Pop-Artness of it. It uses elements of mass culture and due it's
>>>>>>>> (most often) screen- based nature, it tends to have a
>>>>>>>> graphic-design quality to it. On top of that, it has one more very
>>>>>>>> significant feature that Pop-Art didn't have. Almost anyone can
>>>>>>>> experience it in an environment of their own choosing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experiencing art within the domain of your choosing is important --
>>>>>>> but this has always been possible. A buyer/ collector of an art
>>>>>>> object may choose to experience the object anywhere he/she wishes.
>>>>>>> But a viewer -- now, a viewer is restricted to the medium where a
>>>>>>> 3d piece can be experienced without buying it -- you know, an art
>>>>>>> gallery, a museum, someone's home. The enviroment wherein net.art
>>>>>>> can be experienced is definitely not of ones own choosing. net.art
>>>>>>> can only be experienced within the confines of -- well, the
>>>>>>> internet. It will always take a machine to experience net.art. You
>>>>>>> will never be able to walk around it, look at it from the back. It
>>>>>>> simply does no exist in our dimension. Now THAT makes net.art (and
>>>>>>> before that, video art, ie everything that needs a machine) very
>>>>>>> different from anything produces before. Except perhaps fluxus,
>>>>>>> happenings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geert
>>>>>>> http://nznl.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a good description of net art, it's: "popular, transient,
>>>>>>>> expendable, low-cost, mass-produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky,
>>>>>>>> glamorous, and Big Business"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only, this list wasn't devised as a description of net art. It's
>>>>>>>> Richard Hamilton describing Pop-Art in the late 50's. Eery, eh?
>>>>>>>> So, wow! If we consider the primary proponents of these two
>>>>>>>> "schools", we're looking to try to find a balance between Clement
>>>>>>>> Greenberg and Arthur Danto. That's pretty intense. I came across a
>>>>>>>> true gem of a find just yesterday. In the October, 2004 issue of
>>>>>>>> ArtForum, they published a previously unpublished lecture given by
>>>>>>>> Greenberg on... Pop- Art. Very interesting read but not surprising
>>>>>>>> that he didn't care for it all. Here's a great quote from the
>>>>>>>> lecture: "But Pop art has not yet produced anything that has given
>>>>>>>> me, for one, pause; moved me deeply; that has challenged my taste
>>>>>>>> or capacities and forced me to expand them."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Danto on the other hand says that art's flight from Abstract
>>>>>>>> Expressionism (Greenberg's forte) is a turning point where art
>>>>>>>> becomes philosophy which sounds to me like something very
>>>>>>>> challenging and deeply moving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, one of the interesting things to consider, is the
>>>>>>>> audience. Who were Abstract Expressionism's audience? Who were
>>>>>>>> Pop-Art's audience? Who are Net-Art's audience?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not going to supply any answers. This is just stuff to think
>>>>>>>> about. But I do feel that Net-Art has the potential to create a
>>>>>>>> meaningful bridge between Greenberg and Danto and that it's truly
>>>>>>>> worth pursuing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20.4.2006, at 13:26, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been reading Paul Klee a lot lately, and I like his take on
>>>>>>>>> abstraction. His answer might be "something like both a and b,
>>>>>>>>> with certain caveats." If there is a spiritual or a
>>>>>>>>> transcendental, we are not going to re- present it simply by
>>>>>>>>> drawing the surface of objects with illusionary renaissance
>>>>>>>>> perspective. So to get at the life/ history/essence of an object,
>>>>>>>>> we have to try to represent that object over time, which is hard
>>>>>>>>> to do in a single, static, 2D picture plane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So Klee developed a system of representation to try to get at the
>>>>>>>>> source of what something is. And of course his paintings don't
>>>>>>>>> look exactly like the surface of a thing. But they always have
>>>>>>>>> some relationship to the surface of a thing, because the surface
>>>>>>>>> of a thing has at least something to do with the essence of the
>>>>>>>>> thing. And since existence is very complex and the language of
>>>>>>>>> painting is necessarily more simple and reductive, then the
>>>>>>>>> painting will necessarily be an "abstraction," since it can't be
>>>>>>>>> a simulation. But the goal is not abstraction for its own sake.
>>>>>>>>> The goal is to get at the essence of a thing, and in order to do
>>>>>>>>> this using the limited vocabulary of (in Klee's case) painting,
>>>>>>>>> it's going to be abstracted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting that Klee's systematic approach to representation
>>>>>>>>> influenced Armin Hofmann who influenced Casey Reas whose
>>>>>>>>> Processing software is currently influencing the aesthetic of the
>>>>>>>>> generative art scene. All via a Bauhaus modernist graphic design
>>>>>>>>> door, which is a funny door for it to come through, considering
>>>>>>>>> it winds up in the midst of the late modern, often anti-formalist
>>>>>>>>> net art scene.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some quotations that seem relevant:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's this sort of ridiculous idea left over from the 20th
>>>>>>>>> century that abstraction and figuration are legitimate poles.
>>>>>>>>> And I from the very start have incorporated the two things
>>>>>>>>> together. I've been fascinated by the idea that there is really
>>>>>>>>> no distinction -- it's just a question of scale. (matthew
>>>>>>>>> ritchie)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forms react on us both through their essence and their
>>>>>>>>> appearance, those kindred organs of the spirit. The line of
>>>>>>>>> demarcation between essence and appearance is faint. There is no
>>>>>>>>> clash, just a specific something which demands that the
>>>>>>>>> essentials be grasped. (paul klee)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not easy to orient yourself in a whole that is made up of
>>>>>>>>> parts belonging to different dimensions. And nature is such a
>>>>>>>>> whole...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The answer lies in methods of handling spatial representation
>>>>>>>>> which lead to an image that is plastically clear. The difficulty
>>>>>>>>> lies in the temporal deficiencies of language. For language there
>>>>>>>>> is no way of seeing many dimensions at once. (paul klee)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should be no separation between spontaneous work with an
>>>>>>>>> emotional tone and work directed by the intellect. Both are
>>>>>>>>> supplementary to each other and must be regarded as intimately
>>>>>>>>> connected. Discipline and freedom are thus to be seen as elements
>>>>>>>>> of equal weight, each partaking of the other. (armin hofmann)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the face of the mystery, analysis stops perplexed. But the
>>>>>>>>> mystery is to share in the creation of form by pressing forward
>>>>>>>>> to the seal of mystery. (paul klee)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The chosen artists are those who dig down close to the secret
>>>>>>>>> source where the primal law feeds the forces of development.
>>>>>>>>> (paul klee)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To overcome an obstacle or an enemy
>>>>>>>>> To dominate the impossible in your life
>>>>>>>>> Reach in the darkness
>>>>>>>>> (paul simon)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Art plays in the dark with ultimate things and yet it reaches
>>>>>>>>> them. (paul klee)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andre SC wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello List
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just wondering, do you think Abstraction is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a. necessarily reductive in nature
>>>>>>>>> b. actually inherently transcendental
>>>>>>>>> c. both a and b above
>>>>>>>>> d. depends, if we are talking performative, generative, iterative
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> retronascent
>>>>>>>>> e. none of the above , but?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> because?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andre SC
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>>>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/
>>>>>>>>> info/29.php
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>>>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>>>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/
>>>>>>>> info/29.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/
>>>>>>> info/29.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/
>>>>>> info/29.php
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>>> +
>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>>> 29.php
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>> +
>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>>>> 29.php
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/ subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/ 29.php
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pall Thayer
>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art? (around Paul Klee)


----- Original Message -----
From: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

> Hi Andre,
>
> I've been reading Paul Klee a lot lately, and I like his take on
> abstraction. His answer might be "something like both a and b, with
> certain caveats." If there is a spiritual or a transcendental, we are not
> going to re-present it simply by drawing the surface of objects with
> illusionary renaissance perspective. So to get at the
> life/history/essence of an object, we have to try to represent that object
> over time, which is hard to do in a single, static, 2D picture plane.
>
so if we interpret time as a dimension, and aply the same rationale to other
(theoretical) dimensions inevitably the representation in itself is a
reduction, however if the in stead of reproduction we think in terms of
invocation, e.g. 'state' of sence, experience or consciousness - it is
almost neccesarily transcendent.

> So Klee developed a system of representation to try to get at the source
> of what something is. And of course his paintings don't look exactly like
> the surface of a thing. But they always have some relationship to the
> surface of a thing, because the surface of a thing has at least something
> to do with the essence of the thing. And since existence is very complex
> and the language of painting is necessarily more simple and reductive,
> then the painting will necessarily be an "abstraction," since it can't be
> a simulation. But the goal is not abstraction for its own sake. The goal
> is to get at the essence of a thing, and in order to do this using the
> limited vocabulary of (in Klee's case) painting, it's going to be
> abstracted.
>
Okay, that's cool, part of why I asked in the first place was because much
of the 'abstraction' that I've seen in digital and net.art so far, has
struck me as somwhat superficial windowdressing gimickery.

> Interesting that Klee's systematic approach to representation influenced
> Armin Hofmann who influenced Casey Reas whose Processing software is
> currently influencing the aesthetic of the generative art scene. All via
> a Bauhaus modernist graphic design door, which is a funny door for it to
> come through, considering it winds up in the midst of the late modern,
> often anti-formalist net art scene.
>
Sounds interesting thanx (esp. for me with a g. design background), will
look through that vector. (Always felt there is something quite twisted
below the surface of most things German :)

> Some quotations that seem relevant:
>
> There's this sort of ridiculous idea left over from the 20th century that
> abstraction and figuration are legitimate poles. And I from the very
> start have incorporated the two things together. I've been fascinated by
> the idea that there is really no distinction -- it's just a question of
> scale. (matthew ritchie)
>
hmmm, poles and their legitimacy are always a matter of perspective - but i
think there's a point in sugesting that abstract if understood as only the
opposite of figurative would be a grossly reductive abstraction of
abstraction :)

>
> Forms react on us both through their essence and their appearance, those
> kindred organs of the spirit. The line of demarcation between essence and
> appearance is faint. There is no clash, just a specific something which
> demands that the essentials be grasped. (paul klee)
>
whoa, that's getting heavy - i like the implicit recursive relationships in
that statement.
>
> It is not easy to orient yourself in a whole that is made up of parts
> belonging to different dimensions. And nature is such a whole...
>
'holarchies' - all they way up, all the way down

> The answer lies in methods of handling spatial representation which lead
> to an image that is plastically clear. The difficulty lies in the temporal
> deficiencies of language. For language there is no way of seeing many
> dimensions at once. (paul klee)
>
>
> There should be no separation between spontaneous work with an emotional
> tone and work directed by the intellect. Both are supplementary to each
> other and must be regarded as intimately connected. Discipline and freedom
> are thus to be seen as elements of equal weight, each partaking of the
> other. (armin hofmann)
>
like ths attitude very much!

>
> In the face of the mystery, analysis stops perplexed. But the mystery is
> to share in the creation of form by pressing forward to the seal of
> mystery. (paul klee)
>
>
> The chosen artists are those who dig down close to the secret source where
> the primal law feeds the forces of development. (paul klee)
>
>
> To overcome an obstacle or an enemy
> To dominate the impossible in your life
> Reach in the darkness
> (paul simon)
>
hmmm, basically boils down to what Ken Wilber's crowd would call 'Include
and Transcend"

>
> Art plays in the dark with ultimate things and yet it reaches them. (paul
> klee)
>
... and often runs them over :)

Andre SC
> +++++++++++

DISCUSSION

an untitled Kentridge


untitledKentridge1 : http://www.pixelplexus.co.za/blog/2006/04/22/untitled=
kentridge1/

Generative pixel pimping digital 'abstraction' of most of William Kentridge=
's printmaking :)

What do you gs think?

(and who should sign where?:)

Ciao

Andre SC

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?


Hi Curt & Pall

Great 'snippet' Pall.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I imagine there is also an argument that
the art is not just where the art happens, and that the visuals or produced
artefacts, though they are less central, are still a very important element
of the mix that makes up the art. Especially in terms of their relationship
to other aspects of the mix (e.g. art & historic, technological, and
personal culture and contextualities) , be it only as entry, departure or
'informative' aspects.

I don't think one can look into generative art, especially 'pure' generative
art without seeing something like the essence of art being drawn away from
submittal too constraints of scope, criteria of actualisation and dependence
on external authorship.

Pall: I think the 'conscious' you refer to is an important point, as long as
consciousness is understood and benchmarked purely in terms of the generic
human consciousness 'model' everything else will seem second best. But
here's a question (relating to Vernor Vinge's 'Technological Singularity'
scenarios):
If a constructed consciousness was to surpass the limitations of human
consciousness, would human consciousness be capable of recognizing this?

[Generative (art as the) missing link (in AI) theory;
what computational intelligence needs is system level autopoeitic aesthetic
what generative art wants is sensory computational intelligence
- but that is another picture]

Regards

Andre SC
----- Original Message -----
From: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?

> Hi Pall,
>
> I keep reintroducing this snippet in different contexts, but it seems
> related to what you're talking about below, particularly regarding
> Pollock:
> http://lab404.com/ghost/defense.html
>
> We can understand Pollock as an improvisational dancer. The paint showed
> evidence of his collaborative dance with chance. With generative software
> art, the human coder is the choreographer of instructions for a chance
> dance. The software as it runs is now the improvisational dancer, and the
> abstract visual art that results shows evidence of the software's
> collaborative dance with chance. With Pollock, the "action" of the art
> lay at the intersection between Pollock and the canvas (an intersection
> that the paint itself bridged). With generative software art, the
> "action" of the art lies at the intersection between the coder and the
> sofware's "run/performance" of the dance. The abstract visuals that
> result are less central to the "art" of it all.
> http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/ focuses on the code and
> the performative run of the code. You're free to take a screen shot of
> the abstract visuals that result, but that's not where the "action" of the
> exhibit!
> is. Pollock removed the focal point of the art from the object to the
> performative action. Generative art removes the focal point of the art
> one step further, from the performative action to the coded choreography
> (literally "script writing") of the performative action. Pollock sold his
> paintings. Casey Reas sells CD-ROMs of his code (and archival ink prints
> of screencaptures of select performative software runs to "patrons" who
> still don't get it).
>
> Regarding the circle drawing program, I think if you wrote a
> circle-drawing program that used the vaule of Pi, and the output was drawn
> on a plotter printer where the arm literally transcribed the vector arc,
> then the computer would "remember/know" the nature of a circle more than
> if you simply told it to plot a series of discrete x,y coordinates in
> bitmapped screen space. A strange thing for me to say since I've no faith
> in "AI," but maybe you know what I mean.
>
> best,
> curt
>
> ++++++++++++++
>
>
> Pall wrote:
>
> But I also want to get back to the issue of abstraction because
> there's something I've been thinking about lately that I didn't
> mention in previous posts. That is that if a digital piece is based
> on programming that essentially produces the artwork itself, I feel
> that, regardless of the subject matter shown, the piece becomes
> inherently abstract because the 'entity' producing it isn't conscious
> of its content. And I feel that this relates in a way to Jackson
> Pollock's method of handing some control over to the medium itself,
> allowing the properties of paint to control certain aspects of the
> 'image' to heighten the sense of abstraction. Paint isn't capable of
> conscious representation but humans have to truly fight to escape it
> (that is, assuming that they even can - look at some of the work of
> Andre Masson and Kandinsky). In the same way, computers aren't
> capable of conscious representation so even if the image they produce
> looks like a tree, it's still abstract because a computer can't
> consciously know what a tree is.
>
> I did a little experiment recently where I decided to teach my
> computer, in its own terms, how to draw a circle. So instead of
> simply using something like 'g.drawEllipse(10, 10, 100, 100);', I
> wrote out an algorithm to make it plot each point of a circle. Then I
> turned it into an animated applet and let it run. As I sat and
> watched the computer trace this circle over and over again, I asked
> myself, "OK, does my computer now know what a circle is?" Well, it
> must because I'm watching it draw it. I could've made the algorithm
> into a function called draw_a_circle and then I could just tell the
> computer to draw_a_circle and it would. But is the computer conscious
> of what a circle is? If I show a child how to draw a circle, chances
> are that if I then show that child an image of a circle, the child
> will recognize it. So, after teaching my computer to draw a circle,
> will I be able to present the computer with an image of a circle and
> have it recognize it? No. Of course not. I know, this isn't ground-
> breaking stuff. When presented, it's blatantly obvious. But from an
> artistic standpoint it's definitely something to think about.
>
> Pall

DISCUSSION

Re: considering abstraction in digital art?


Thank you for the responses. It is going take this newb a while to crunch
through all that but am going to try. This thread has already been more than I
had anticipated, very stimulating and as discourse in a sense quite uplifting.
I will aim to be somewhat more committal (and 'contributional'!) in future
posts :)

Andre SC

Quoting andre@pixelplexus.co.za:

> Hello List
>
> Just wondering, do you think Abstraction is?
>
> a.necessarily reductive in nature
> b.actually inherently transcendental
> c.both a and b above
> d.depends, if we are talking performative, generative, iterative or
> retronascent
> e.none of the above , but?
>
> because?

> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>