ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Rob Myers is an artist and hacker based in the UK.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?
Quoting Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>:
>> Rob said:
>> Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
>> can make
>> it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all
>> the populist
>> noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.
>
> Universal? In what sense?
In the sense that:
> "Anyone can make it, and make it well..."
;-)
> once you say 'programmer net artist', you're not talking about 'anyone'.
> being able to program and program well, concerning art, is quite rare.
Many people can do a bit of Actionscript or Javascript, many more people than
could do Lingo a decade ago. I find the net a limiting medium for the display
of code (I've only done 2, maybe 3 pieces of net.art in ten years because of
this), and I am not convinced that struggling with udp is of great interest to
end users / viewers if they cannot see it on their screen. I agree that depth
of engagement with code is rare, though, and you are *absolutely* right that
there is more to be done in code-based net.art .
My point, which in many ways is congruent to this, is that YouTube distributes
video in a way that would have required root access to a server a decade ago,
that anyone can generate a website for poems or images using WordPress (and/or
flickr), and that streaming media is now if not easy then at least attemptable
using webcasting . Net publishing and display has been democratised,
many tasks
that were previously coding challenges are now free commodities.
So net.art needs to move beyond commodified forms, which means moving into
deeper engagement with code. But there is a tension here, as coding is not per
se artistic. And not every net.poet or streaming video artist may want
to code,
and possibly they should not have to. How they will stand out against the
background radiation of an intenet now utterly saturated with media I don't
know, though.
- Rob.
>> Rob said:
>> Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
>> can make
>> it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all
>> the populist
>> noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.
>
> Universal? In what sense?
In the sense that:
> "Anyone can make it, and make it well..."
;-)
> once you say 'programmer net artist', you're not talking about 'anyone'.
> being able to program and program well, concerning art, is quite rare.
Many people can do a bit of Actionscript or Javascript, many more people than
could do Lingo a decade ago. I find the net a limiting medium for the display
of code (I've only done 2, maybe 3 pieces of net.art in ten years because of
this), and I am not convinced that struggling with udp is of great interest to
end users / viewers if they cannot see it on their screen. I agree that depth
of engagement with code is rare, though, and you are *absolutely* right that
there is more to be done in code-based net.art .
My point, which in many ways is congruent to this, is that YouTube distributes
video in a way that would have required root access to a server a decade ago,
that anyone can generate a website for poems or images using WordPress (and/or
flickr), and that streaming media is now if not easy then at least attemptable
using webcasting . Net publishing and display has been democratised,
many tasks
that were previously coding challenges are now free commodities.
So net.art needs to move beyond commodified forms, which means moving into
deeper engagement with code. But there is a tension here, as coding is not per
se artistic. And not every net.poet or streaming video artist may want
to code,
and possibly they should not have to. How they will stand out against the
background radiation of an intenet now utterly saturated with media I don't
know, though.
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?
Quoting manik <manik@sbb.co.yu>:
> Everyones hands at home where as ten years ago you still needed access to an
> Avid, Media 100, SGI machines that, unless rich or in school made it a
> the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a
> world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating ...
> But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?
Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
can make
it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all the populist
noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.
> It's here every day. p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player,
> remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah. monitors.
Yes, net.art is not a frontier any more. Painting an empty landscape
when there
are skyscrapers as far as the eye can see is unrealistic. You either have to
start sketching glass and steel or "get your motor running, head out on the
highway" to find a new frontier.
It would be an amusing irony if, for net.art, that frontier is the gallery.
> Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave
> their desk and enter a gallery want something different .Thus, as mentioned
> by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved.
Like an aging music fan the gallery system needs cool in a way it can
understand. This is "stadium net.art". The crossover will look distorted to
those who don't make it, they will be left grumbling about how the authentic
scene has been corrupted by AOR men, like punk rock in LA in 1982.
- Rob.
> Everyones hands at home where as ten years ago you still needed access to an
> Avid, Media 100, SGI machines that, unless rich or in school made it a
> the 1990's HTML and Flash toolsets were/are fairly limited. We live in a
> world of meta-meta-tools. Tools creating ...
> But seriously... is still active in what is happening now?
Yes, net.art has not disappeared, it has just become universal. Anyone
can make
it, and make it well, it is not exclusive any more. And for all the populist
noises that the artworld makes, exclusivity is what fine art is about.
> It's here every day. p2p, rss, flickr, myspace, google ads, multi player,
> remote viewing, blog, vlog, blah, blah, blah. monitors.
Yes, net.art is not a frontier any more. Painting an empty landscape
when there
are skyscrapers as far as the eye can see is unrealistic. You either have to
start sketching glass and steel or "get your motor running, head out on the
highway" to find a new frontier.
It would be an amusing irony if, for net.art, that frontier is the gallery.
> Most people I don't think could engage with it very well. People who leave
> their desk and enter a gallery want something different .Thus, as mentioned
> by others here, gallery-net-art-whatchamacallit has evolved.
Like an aging music fan the gallery system needs cool in a way it can
understand. This is "stadium net.art". The crossover will look distorted to
those who don't make it, they will be left grumbling about how the authentic
scene has been corrupted by AOR men, like punk rock in LA in 1982.
- Rob.
Re: Re: what are we calling ourselves?
Quoting Andre SC <andre@pixelplexus.co.za>:
> I like 'computational' very much, sure some would argue that
> 'generative' is more appropriate but there is a difference. Perhaps
> one could argue that computational has a stronger association with
> the vectors of developing artificial and augmented intelligence via
> programming, as opposed to 'generative's closely related but
> different focus on the processing and automation capabilities of
> digital technology?
AI can be used generatively though. AARON uses an expert system and a
production
system, both of which are AI staples.
There are those who argue at length that "Generative" art predates
computers and
includes the usual suspects and their dice. I've some sympathy for this
view but
I think that current usage doesn't really keep this broader historical
meaning.
http://www.vagueterrain.net/content/archives/journal03/galanter01.html
http://www.vagueterrain.net/content/archives/journal03/myers01.html
"Art Computing" is my favourite term, it's more like "painting" or
"sculpting".
But streaming video and other net.art activities that are media based rather
than code based stretch that description, it's more a successor to
"algorithmic
art".
We spend a lot of time on eu-gene discussing what the heck generative art is,
and why the idea upsets Chinese Room apologists so much. I hope RHIZOME_RAW
doesn't get hung up on taxonomy. ;-)
On Rhizome there are painters, performers, video artists, hackers, roboteers,
academics, administrators, skript kiddies and more. All are Rhizomers. It's a
very special mix, its pluralism is its strength.
"Ich bin ein Rhizomer!"
- Rob.
> I like 'computational' very much, sure some would argue that
> 'generative' is more appropriate but there is a difference. Perhaps
> one could argue that computational has a stronger association with
> the vectors of developing artificial and augmented intelligence via
> programming, as opposed to 'generative's closely related but
> different focus on the processing and automation capabilities of
> digital technology?
AI can be used generatively though. AARON uses an expert system and a
production
system, both of which are AI staples.
There are those who argue at length that "Generative" art predates
computers and
includes the usual suspects and their dice. I've some sympathy for this
view but
I think that current usage doesn't really keep this broader historical
meaning.
http://www.vagueterrain.net/content/archives/journal03/galanter01.html
http://www.vagueterrain.net/content/archives/journal03/myers01.html
"Art Computing" is my favourite term, it's more like "painting" or
"sculpting".
But streaming video and other net.art activities that are media based rather
than code based stretch that description, it's more a successor to
"algorithmic
art".
We spend a lot of time on eu-gene discussing what the heck generative art is,
and why the idea upsets Chinese Room apologists so much. I hope RHIZOME_RAW
doesn't get hung up on taxonomy. ;-)
On Rhizome there are painters, performers, video artists, hackers, roboteers,
academics, administrators, skript kiddies and more. All are Rhizomers. It's a
very special mix, its pluralism is its strength.
"Ich bin ein Rhizomer!"
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: net art?
Quoting Salvatore Iaconesi <salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it>:
> the two essential theoretical components of the theory ("equal
> dignity of all medias", and "mix'em up",
Or, alternatively, "give the market what it wants".
"Postproduction" by Nicolas Bourriad looks at this sort of thing as a
follow up
to his earlier "Relational Aesthetics".
"Museum, Inc.: Inside the Global Art World" by Paul Werner gives an insider's
view of how contemporary art helps launder reputations and ideology.
And "Sweet Dreams: Contemporary Art and Complicity" by Johanna Drucker
might be
good for anyone who still needs an October detox.
- Rob.
> the two essential theoretical components of the theory ("equal
> dignity of all medias", and "mix'em up",
Or, alternatively, "give the market what it wants".
"Postproduction" by Nicolas Bourriad looks at this sort of thing as a
follow up
to his earlier "Relational Aesthetics".
"Museum, Inc.: Inside the Global Art World" by Paul Werner gives an insider's
view of how contemporary art helps launder reputations and ideology.
And "Sweet Dreams: Contemporary Art and Complicity" by Johanna Drucker
might be
good for anyone who still needs an October detox.
- Rob.
Re: Notes for a Liberated Computer Language (Version 2)
On 16 Jul 2006, at 19:48, Alexander Galloway wrote:
> Notes for a Liberated Computer Language
> Version 2, July 2006
> HTTP://R-S-G.ORG/LCL/
Cool. The ideology and social history of computer languages is an
under-explored area.
You could implement this in a lisp dialect.
I wrote the opposite language, "Surgical Strike", as a C++ bytecode
compiler inspired by Display Postscript some years ago. :-)
Every Artist-Hacker should write their own language at some point...
- Rob.
> Notes for a Liberated Computer Language
> Version 2, July 2006
> HTTP://R-S-G.ORG/LCL/
Cool. The ideology and social history of computer languages is an
under-explored area.
You could implement this in a lisp dialect.
I wrote the opposite language, "Surgical Strike", as a C++ bytecode
compiler inspired by Display Postscript some years ago. :-)
Every Artist-Hacker should write their own language at some point...
- Rob.