I've only been skimming this one...but I agree with Sarah Thomson when she
says
"There is a danger that if this 'lost history' of artists programming
computers is not rediscovered, that their multiple and different strategies
and approaches will be ignored in favour of a more singular definition."
It seems that there are (again) so many different kinds of art/and artists
intentions within this particular thread. For one you have artists such as
David Rokeby...who creates all his own hard and software for his work...but
with works such as his Very Nervous System, has also built it as an
architecture (both soft and hardware versions) for other artists to use in
their own way - and stretch etc...an 'open system' or sturcture is you
like....
and then there are other artists or groups such as IOD with Webstalker where
the very fact that it IS a piece of software is fundamental to its
context/existence et al...
and in answer to Sarah re. examples of artists earlier in the 20th C its worth
mentioning
the artist Harold Cohen who for over 30 years has been developing software to
think about drawing/painting the way he thinks about drawing and painting (for
those of you not familiar, Harold was a very well known painter in the 60's
and then moved to the states - san diego now - and has worked with computers
ever since)...his philosophy is very much that the program is the artwork, but
the program also generates its own artwork (Harold has been present within a
lot of AI discussion etc etc)...according to Harolds own rules and principles.
Far fropm being ignored etc...Harold has had shows in many major museums
(incl. major retrospective at the Tate in London 1983)...and was quite
vociferous in opposition to artists using readymade software (as opposed to
writing their own) when i first met him back in the late 80's...it would be
interesting to know his position on this now.....
best
Susan Collins
-- -- dr susan
http://www.susan-collins.net
http://www.inhabited.net
|