ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Re: is art useless?
Just because we don't see how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
The Turing machine is known as the "universal computer" because this simple
abstract machine/mathematical model is thought to be capable of executing
any conceivable algorithm. Which means that a Turing machine is capable of
doing anything that any conceivable computer can do. There's a fabulous book
called 'The Universal Computer -- From Leibniz to Turing' by the emminent
USAmerican logician Martin Davis that is wonderfully readable, excellent and
entertaining as a history of ideas and as a narrative of the lives,
tribulations, and achievements of Leibniz, Boole, Frege, Cantor, Hilbert,
Godel and Turing, and is understandable in its discussion of theory. I
recommend it very strongly, Pall. It will be around for a long time.
There have been many attempts to show that there are thought processes of
which humans are capable and computers are not, but none have been
convincing. Perhaps the most famous have been made by Roger Penrose. They
are popular because so many people so desperately want to believe that the
mind is not algorithmic. Much like so many people wanted to believe (many
still do) that Darwin was wrong about our having evolved from the simplest
of life forms.
ja
http://vispo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pall Thayer [mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca]
Sent: March 2, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Jim Andrews
Cc: list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
I agree that computers are "radically flexible machines", much more
flexible than most users realize. That flexibility only becomes apparent
through programming. Armed with an arsenal of computer savvy and a few
languages, the computer is like putty in one's hands.
However I have to disagree strongly with your statement that there aren't
thought processes that humans are capable of and computers are not. It may
be hard to prove and I'm not going to attempt to provide any proof but when
you do get into programming I think it's hard not to see the "thought"
constraints imposed by the computer's rigid logic. How would you program a
computer to establish a favorite flavor of ice cream? How would you lend it
the capability to decide that a song that was it's favorite three years ago,
now sucks (and after 5 more years, decide that it's good again)? These
elements of personal, conscious subjectivity involve common human thought
processes that I don't see how you could possibly program into a machine. I
prefer to exploit the computer's pitfalls rather than to attempt to play
into the myth of machine/artificial intelligence. I'm thoroughly convinced
that the only way we can possibly achieve any sort of machine intelligence
is through radical redefinitions of the term "intelligence" and in some
cases that appears to be what is being done in an attempt to achieve machine
intelligence.
Pall
The Turing machine is known as the "universal computer" because this simple
abstract machine/mathematical model is thought to be capable of executing
any conceivable algorithm. Which means that a Turing machine is capable of
doing anything that any conceivable computer can do. There's a fabulous book
called 'The Universal Computer -- From Leibniz to Turing' by the emminent
USAmerican logician Martin Davis that is wonderfully readable, excellent and
entertaining as a history of ideas and as a narrative of the lives,
tribulations, and achievements of Leibniz, Boole, Frege, Cantor, Hilbert,
Godel and Turing, and is understandable in its discussion of theory. I
recommend it very strongly, Pall. It will be around for a long time.
There have been many attempts to show that there are thought processes of
which humans are capable and computers are not, but none have been
convincing. Perhaps the most famous have been made by Roger Penrose. They
are popular because so many people so desperately want to believe that the
mind is not algorithmic. Much like so many people wanted to believe (many
still do) that Darwin was wrong about our having evolved from the simplest
of life forms.
ja
http://vispo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pall Thayer [mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca]
Sent: March 2, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Jim Andrews
Cc: list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
I agree that computers are "radically flexible machines", much more
flexible than most users realize. That flexibility only becomes apparent
through programming. Armed with an arsenal of computer savvy and a few
languages, the computer is like putty in one's hands.
However I have to disagree strongly with your statement that there aren't
thought processes that humans are capable of and computers are not. It may
be hard to prove and I'm not going to attempt to provide any proof but when
you do get into programming I think it's hard not to see the "thought"
constraints imposed by the computer's rigid logic. How would you program a
computer to establish a favorite flavor of ice cream? How would you lend it
the capability to decide that a song that was it's favorite three years ago,
now sucks (and after 5 more years, decide that it's good again)? These
elements of personal, conscious subjectivity involve common human thought
processes that I don't see how you could possibly program into a machine. I
prefer to exploit the computer's pitfalls rather than to attempt to play
into the myth of machine/artificial intelligence. I'm thoroughly convinced
that the only way we can possibly achieve any sort of machine intelligence
is through radical redefinitions of the term "intelligence" and in some
cases that appears to be what is being done in an attempt to achieve machine
intelligence.
Pall
Re: is art useless?
if you relegate programming to being a craft/design thing with no
significant artistic dimension, then you are not reading the ways in which
the programming 'speaks' as art. programming can be expressive of different
types of things than show up in a poemy poem or a video or a graphic etc.
programming is a writing, but a writing of machines.
an architect's vision for an ambitious structure is integrally bound up in
his/her knowledge of the materials and principles of construction, comes out
of what is possible there.
computers are not simply media machines. they're not simply glorified video
displays, or glorified typewriters, etc.
they are radically flexible as machines. flexible to the point where there
is no proof, and probably never will be, that there are thought processes of
which humans are capable and computers are not. they can be as flexible as
thought in process.
it is important to understand this so that our ideas of what digital art can
be do not become mired in simply producing old media with them such as
video, poemy poems, graphics, etc.
programmability is what distinguishes computers from other types of
machines. that computers are programmable is the most fundamental
phenomenological observation one can make about computers because it is the
fundamental property that distinguishes them from all other types of
machines. programmability is also, then, the key to distinguishing anything
made with computers from what is made with other machines.
to relegate programming and understanding of the theory of computation to
craft/design is to stunt digital art to being simply conventional video,
poetry etc in another form.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Szpakowski [mailto:szpako@yahoo.com]
> Sent: March 2, 2007 5:49 AM
> To: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
>
>
> HI Jim
> <Are you implying that the technical dimensions of
> digital art can easily be
> relegated to craft and design?>
> yes, absolutely :) Nothing *substantive* about the
> involvement of programming in art forces us to need to
> rethink those particular categories & to urge
> otherwise is to mistake cart & horse.
> (I'm not saying, of course, that there might not be
> other, aesthetic or philosophical, reasons why the
> lines might be redrawn, I don't believe so myself, but
> I'm open to good arguments)
> michael
> --- Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Hi Jim
> > > sometimes when things aren't broke we shouldn't
> > > attempt to mend them - there's a perfectly
> > respectable
> > > and relevant conceptual framework already existing
> > > here of art/craft, art/design or whatever...
> >
> > Are you implying that the technical dimensions of
> > digital art can easily be
> > relegated to craft and design?
> >
> > I appreciate interesting programmed digital art and
> > try to create some of it
> > myself. The technical and artistic are so involved
> > in each other, in
> > interesting programmed art, that the distinction
> > becomes superficial and
> > even misleading. Programming is like Architecture,
> > where there is more
> > traditional integration between art and engineering.
> >
> > Also, I imagine that to Architects, the issue of
> > use/useless is a bit
> > different than in many another art.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
significant artistic dimension, then you are not reading the ways in which
the programming 'speaks' as art. programming can be expressive of different
types of things than show up in a poemy poem or a video or a graphic etc.
programming is a writing, but a writing of machines.
an architect's vision for an ambitious structure is integrally bound up in
his/her knowledge of the materials and principles of construction, comes out
of what is possible there.
computers are not simply media machines. they're not simply glorified video
displays, or glorified typewriters, etc.
they are radically flexible as machines. flexible to the point where there
is no proof, and probably never will be, that there are thought processes of
which humans are capable and computers are not. they can be as flexible as
thought in process.
it is important to understand this so that our ideas of what digital art can
be do not become mired in simply producing old media with them such as
video, poemy poems, graphics, etc.
programmability is what distinguishes computers from other types of
machines. that computers are programmable is the most fundamental
phenomenological observation one can make about computers because it is the
fundamental property that distinguishes them from all other types of
machines. programmability is also, then, the key to distinguishing anything
made with computers from what is made with other machines.
to relegate programming and understanding of the theory of computation to
craft/design is to stunt digital art to being simply conventional video,
poetry etc in another form.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Szpakowski [mailto:szpako@yahoo.com]
> Sent: March 2, 2007 5:49 AM
> To: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
>
>
> HI Jim
> <Are you implying that the technical dimensions of
> digital art can easily be
> relegated to craft and design?>
> yes, absolutely :) Nothing *substantive* about the
> involvement of programming in art forces us to need to
> rethink those particular categories & to urge
> otherwise is to mistake cart & horse.
> (I'm not saying, of course, that there might not be
> other, aesthetic or philosophical, reasons why the
> lines might be redrawn, I don't believe so myself, but
> I'm open to good arguments)
> michael
> --- Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Hi Jim
> > > sometimes when things aren't broke we shouldn't
> > > attempt to mend them - there's a perfectly
> > respectable
> > > and relevant conceptual framework already existing
> > > here of art/craft, art/design or whatever...
> >
> > Are you implying that the technical dimensions of
> > digital art can easily be
> > relegated to craft and design?
> >
> > I appreciate interesting programmed digital art and
> > try to create some of it
> > myself. The technical and artistic are so involved
> > in each other, in
> > interesting programmed art, that the distinction
> > becomes superficial and
> > even misleading. Programming is like Architecture,
> > where there is more
> > traditional integration between art and engineering.
> >
> > Also, I imagine that to Architects, the issue of
> > use/useless is a bit
> > different than in many another art.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
Re: is art useless?
> Hi Jim
> sometimes when things aren't broke we shouldn't
> attempt to mend them - there's a perfectly respectable
> and relevant conceptual framework already existing
> here of art/craft, art/design or whatever...
Are you implying that the technical dimensions of digital art can easily be
relegated to craft and design?
I appreciate interesting programmed digital art and try to create some of it
myself. The technical and artistic are so involved in each other, in
interesting programmed art, that the distinction becomes superficial and
even misleading. Programming is like Architecture, where there is more
traditional integration between art and engineering.
Also, I imagine that to Architects, the issue of use/useless is a bit
different than in many another art.
ja
http://vispo.com
> sometimes when things aren't broke we shouldn't
> attempt to mend them - there's a perfectly respectable
> and relevant conceptual framework already existing
> here of art/craft, art/design or whatever...
Are you implying that the technical dimensions of digital art can easily be
relegated to craft and design?
I appreciate interesting programmed digital art and try to create some of it
myself. The technical and artistic are so involved in each other, in
interesting programmed art, that the distinction becomes superficial and
even misleading. Programming is like Architecture, where there is more
traditional integration between art and engineering.
Also, I imagine that to Architects, the issue of use/useless is a bit
different than in many another art.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: is art useless?
I don't have a problem with 'useless' art but with restrictions on what art
can be. And, conversely, with art being absent from engineering.
There's quite a bit of software (langwidgets or languagets) and other types
of widgets being created. Mostly they don't have much to do with art. But
were the programmers and engineers to have a sense of software and, more
broadly, engineering as strongly related to art, and were engineering
informed with the atmospheres of art, and the 'values' of art, then we might
get fewer monstrosities and a discipline of engineering in which the
motivations were, more often, similar to those you find in the art world
rather than simply the marketplace. Software and other engineered entities
to make the world better and more beautiful, more interesting, rather than
to simply make dough.
Conversely, were science and engineering to be in closer proximity to art,
art might might be more Pythagorean in the sense that they were involved not
only in mathematics but music, spirituality, and commerce--there wasn't much
separation between art, science, technology, and spiritual matters.
The schism between art and science/technology makes for an ineffectual art
world and a dissassociated/schizophrenic science/technology world.
ja
http://vispo.com
can be. And, conversely, with art being absent from engineering.
There's quite a bit of software (langwidgets or languagets) and other types
of widgets being created. Mostly they don't have much to do with art. But
were the programmers and engineers to have a sense of software and, more
broadly, engineering as strongly related to art, and were engineering
informed with the atmospheres of art, and the 'values' of art, then we might
get fewer monstrosities and a discipline of engineering in which the
motivations were, more often, similar to those you find in the art world
rather than simply the marketplace. Software and other engineered entities
to make the world better and more beautiful, more interesting, rather than
to simply make dough.
Conversely, were science and engineering to be in closer proximity to art,
art might might be more Pythagorean in the sense that they were involved not
only in mathematics but music, spirituality, and commerce--there wasn't much
separation between art, science, technology, and spiritual matters.
The schism between art and science/technology makes for an ineffectual art
world and a dissassociated/schizophrenic science/technology world.
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: is art useless?
Sounds great, Corey. There is so much to be done and undone. I'm all for
objects of contemplation but, also, there's a lot to be said for helping
people do interesting and useful things with style and energy.
Art is a tool, is a key through the doors of perception.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Eiseman [mailto:corey@toegristle.com]
> Sent: February 27, 2007 9:32 PM
> To: Jim Andrews
> Cc: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
>
>
> Jim, I know where you're coming from. Maybe I have an interesting story
> for you. About a year or so I read an article in mental_floss about how
> throwing away old computers was horrible for the environment. Now my
> first reaction was yeah right, who would throw away a computer! But then
> I rode my bike around my neighborhood on trash night and holy moly! I
> found two computers that night, and many more since. Taste the waste,
> people.
>
> So I have been rescuing as many as I can, and now I have all these old
> computer parts laying around.. I could recycle the pieces into an art
> object, but I'm sure that's been done before. So... I'm working on an
> art object that is also a working computer. I'm considering doing this a
> lot more.
>
> you can't have functional art without fun!
>
> :)
>
> Corey Eiseman
> http://toegristle.com/
>
>
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
> > the notion that art is necessarily useless seems to me an exclusionary
> > tactic rather than a compelling argument.
> >
> > what are some arguments for the position that art is
> necessarily useless?
> >
> > ja?
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
>
>
objects of contemplation but, also, there's a lot to be said for helping
people do interesting and useful things with style and energy.
Art is a tool, is a key through the doors of perception.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Eiseman [mailto:corey@toegristle.com]
> Sent: February 27, 2007 9:32 PM
> To: Jim Andrews
> Cc: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
>
>
> Jim, I know where you're coming from. Maybe I have an interesting story
> for you. About a year or so I read an article in mental_floss about how
> throwing away old computers was horrible for the environment. Now my
> first reaction was yeah right, who would throw away a computer! But then
> I rode my bike around my neighborhood on trash night and holy moly! I
> found two computers that night, and many more since. Taste the waste,
> people.
>
> So I have been rescuing as many as I can, and now I have all these old
> computer parts laying around.. I could recycle the pieces into an art
> object, but I'm sure that's been done before. So... I'm working on an
> art object that is also a working computer. I'm considering doing this a
> lot more.
>
> you can't have functional art without fun!
>
> :)
>
> Corey Eiseman
> http://toegristle.com/
>
>
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
> > the notion that art is necessarily useless seems to me an exclusionary
> > tactic rather than a compelling argument.
> >
> > what are some arguments for the position that art is
> necessarily useless?
> >
> > ja?
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
>
>