Rob Myers
Since 2003
Works in United States of America

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.
Discussions (509) Opportunities (1) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: 10 questions/more art


On 10 Nov 2005, at 18:47, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:

> Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
> and perception.

Unless you are creating a program to make art. Painting and art are
two different modes of thinking and perception. Otherwise every wall
is a masterpiece.

> When you write a program you already know what the result will be.

Even for a functional program like Emacs this is not the case. And
for art hacking it may certainly not be the case. Software may, and
often will, be unexpected. Only corporate managerialism prevents this.

> Art doesn't function in the same way.

It depends what kind of art.

> Often an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of
> thinking and perception.

This is the same as programming. A complex program will make demands
and afford possibilities during development that could not be predicted.

> Art is an ongoing cultural discussion.

As is computing. If there are domains outside cultural discussion,
this would be a very interesting phenomenon.

> Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger
> cultural discourse.

The larger "discourse" needs to take notice of computer/digital
culture *and its content*.

> Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs the
> question who is the judge?

Why? If standards are established, any competent individual can
judge. Unless we are assuming an institutional theory of art, in
which case computing can simply be nominated as art.

> Usually in a larger cultural discourse there is an ongoing debate
> about what constitutes "good" art.

Yes, the market demands this. If each season doesn't bring new
fashions, sales will drop.

> I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only
> people who know programming are truly digital artists to be rather
> narrow minded.

Why? If someone who did not know about the support structures of art
made pronouncements on support structures their ignorance would not
be a badge of honor.

> The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think about
> what the support structures are for art. You have collectors,
> museums, and governments. You can add the University and Academic
> realm as a support structure for art. Right now digital art has the
> most support from the Academic structure. In other words you get a
> teaching job.

This puts digital art on a par with science, literature and
"critical" "discourse". Hardly a bad thing.

> Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which
> it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and
> advance the art discourse.

For people who are interested in "challenge, "discourse" and
"advance". But there are more serious concerns for an art that
regards itself as not simply a lackspace for the projection of the
critical/market ego into.

> That's a much larger dscussion than whether someone knows
> programming or how a computer repaints a screen.

But it is a different discussion. I can't decide whether trying to
bring art computing to its heel is parochial or imperialistic.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: video of Harold Cohen talk


On 6 Nov 2005, at 19:37, Jim Andrews wrote:

> Apologies if this link has been on the list before (I imagine it has);
> here's a video of Harold Cohen giving a talk at the Tate gallery
> (April
> 2004): http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/harold_cohen .
> "He is the
> author of the celebrated AARON program, an ongoing research effort in
> autonomous machine (art making) intelligence which began...in 1973."

I was at that talk, it was very good. Hmmm. 1973 was my birthday as
well. :-)

I have a page of Harold Cohen & AARON links at:

http://www.robmyers.org/wiki/index.php/Harold_Cohen

My program draw-something was inspired by AARON. You can get the
source code at:

http://rob-art.sourceforge.net/

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW:NEW/OLD RIDERS ON THE IRON SADDLE


On 30 Oct 2005, at 11:47, manik wrote:

> Right!
> NATO forces present an ultimatum in front of MANIK'S face-they want
> to pass
> through MANIK'S
> yard without paying.
> Charmingly!
> Without pay,my friend,without pay.
> MANIK*$*

When we speak of free enemies, we mean freedom, not price. You may of
course charge to be enemies, but you may not try to prevent your
neighbour from hindering others.

If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I do not have freedom of
association. Beggars must therefore be choosers. And as any CEO will
tell you, there's more to life than money.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: vague


On 27 Oct 2005, at 16:00, manik wrote:

> $MANIK

$ export MANIK="Pay us to be your enemy"
$ echo $MANIK
Pay us to be your enemy
$ $MANIK
-bash: Pay: command not found

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: vague


Information Technology.

- Rob.

On 27 Oct 2005, at 08:00, Jim Andrews wrote:

> everybody wants it no one knows what it is.
>
> ja