Hi, just a super-quick response to Steve's post below.

> So if I get someone else to sculpt something for me.....   because they 
> are more comfortable with that medium....   I'm still the "artist" ?

The history of material collaboration in the arts is rarely talked about, 
however there is a long-standing
tradition of artists employing technicians to produce work for them. 
Artists studios in the renaissance for example
employed teams of people to make work, so hardly anything new.

> How might a technologist re-brand themselves as an artist....   ?
>
> When is someone a "real artist"......     and why is it rarely the 
> programmer/coder/scientist ??

There is no reason at all for a technologist not to "re-situate" themselves 
as an artist (I hate the term "brand" btw).
If they have critically insightful ideas, and the means and motivation to 
realise them materially, why not?

Tom









> In response to Roberts last posting.....   I'm curious:
>

> Also if a "technologist" happily builds an LED screen and programme it, 
> they can't call it "art" as they are not a "real artist" (as often seems 
> the case)
>
> I'm very curious about this "art" brand.....   ?
>
> How might a technologist re-brand themselves as an artist....   ?
>
> When is someone a "real artist"......     and why is it rarely the 
> programmer/coder/scientist ??
>
> mmmm......
>
> Steve
>
>
>>Having just completed a networked permanent public artwork in South
>>East London I am still reeling from the very removed and unsettling
>>experience of overseeing the fabrication of a bespoke LED screen, and
>>relying very much on the skills of the screen makers and associated
>>programmer.  I for one am most comfortable when working within my own
>>skill set as it ebbs and flows, but I also always seem to want to
>>make work that is beyond me technically --that moment when you know
>>what you want to make but just don't quite know how to do it yourself.
>>
>>In which case, should the artist learn the skills themselves or make
>>it happen with the help of others? Is one approach better than the
>>other?
>>
>>This is an aside really, and not quite relevant to the two core
>>threads running on CRUMB at the moment, but I do think it is a
>>perennial concern and one which is put into sharp relief where
>>artists use of new(ish) media is concerned.
>>
>>Jon Thomson
>>
>>-->
>>http://www.thomson-craighead.net
>>
>>--> u/p/n/o/w
>>New Media Where, Neuberger Museum of Art, New York.
>>Database imaginary, http://databaseimaginary.banff.org/index.php
>>Decorative Newsfeeds as a permanent public artwork in Forest Hill,
>>London
>>
>>--> u/p/n/e/x/t
>>Light from Tomorrow, ISEA 2006, San Jose CA
>>http://www.lightfromtomorrow.com
>>
>>
>>On 28 Mar 2006, at 02:27, Robert Labossiere wrote:
>>
>>>Just for clarification, Flash media are not less "made by hand"
>>>than other new media. Much Flash-based art is hand coded using the
>>>underlying OOP called actionscript, now in version 3.0. The term
>>>"made by hand" is also problematic when you consider how much html,
>>>dhtml, javascript, even asp and php is cut-and-pasted rather than
>>>written from scratch.
>>>
>>>I can see why programmers might be priviledged over artists. It is
>>>not only nostalgia for the idea of connection between artist and
>>>medium...pushing pixels the way artists used to push paint. "The
>>>programmer," compared to "the artist," is a kind of anti-hero, a
>>>welcome antidote to artists working at museum-scale who perform
>>>more and more like designers and project managers, commissioning
>>>fabriction and supervising installation.
>>>
>>>Robert Labossiere
>>>
>>>http://www.klooj.net/targets
>>>http://www.klooj.net
>>>
>>>
>>>Myron Turner wrote:
>>>>I've been following the discussion on computing/computation etc
>>>>over the past month.  My first observation goes back to an early
>>>>point in the discussion, where some people seem to suggest that
>>>>it's important to have a grasp not only of programming but of the
>>>>nature of the machine itself. The latter certainly seems to me to
>>>>be a bit extreme and even reductive, like arguing that it's
>>>>necessary to explain a theory of economics on the fact that we're
>>>>mammals.  But while it may not be necessary to understand the
>>>>logical gates and electronics of computer and network switching
>>>>devices, it certainly could be important for the curator to know
>>>>about operating systems and programming languages and development
>>>>software.  To know about these things is to know about the
>>>>material basis of computer-based art, much as the curator of
>>>>twentieth century art would be able to distinguish oil paint from
>>>>acrylic and to know how the advent of acrylics influenced the
>>>>look, the feel, the practice, and the structure of painting.
>>>>To appreciate Jodi's work, for instance, it's important to realize
>>>>that their work was ASCII and HTML-based because that was what
>>>>they had to work with when they started out.  It's significant
>>>>that Jodi has pretty much continued to work in this mode, despite
>>>>developments in web-based technologies.  To take another example,
>>>>curators should know the difference between works created with
>>>>Flash and works "made by hand", so to speak, using Javascript,
>>>>PHP, DHTML, etc.   Technologies imply different takes on the
>>>>creative process and on the meaning of the works created using them.
>>>>A number of posts have asked for more "human" content in net art.
>>>>And I can sympathize with this.  Manovich recently posted an essay
>>>>on data art in which he makes just such a plea:
>>>>
>>>>   For me, the real challenge of data art is not about how to map some
>>>>  abstract and impersonal data into something meaningful and
>>>>beautiful--
>>>>  economists, graphic designers, and scientists are already doing this
>>>>  quite well. The more interesting and at the end maybe more important
>>>>  challenge is how to represent the personal subjective experience
>>>>of a
>>>>  person living in a data society.
>>>>
>>>>This is certainly an important challenge.  On the other hand, it's
>>>>not easy to draw the line, not as long we we believe that the
>>>>formal elements of works of art are themselves meaningful.  And
>>>>those formal element include technologies.  I think you have to
>>>>look very carefully before dismissing an informed relationship
>>>>between artist and curator as hieratic mystification.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Guilherme Kujawski wrote:
>>>>>  the tendency of new media curators to privilege
>>>>>the 'programmer' (as traditional curators privilege the artist)
>>>>>begins
>>>>>to look like mystification: a alliance between artist and
>>>>>curator, as
>>>>>magician and priest of new media, to defend a hierarchy which the
>>>>>proliferation of technology has already helped undermine.
>>>>>However, if
>>>>>emphasis falls on the technology and not the relations it mediates,
>>>>>the tendency to celebrate new media revolutions begins to look
>>>>>like a
>>>>>utopian affirmation of the marketing hype.
>